State v. Vance

Decision Date08 April 1903
Citation94 N.W. 204,119 Iowa 685
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Appeal from Wapello District Court.--HON. C. W. VERMILLION, Judge.

DEFENDANT was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of lewdness and from the sentence imposed appeals.


Jaques & Jaques and McElroy & McElroy for appellant.

Chas W. Mullan, Attorney General, and Chas. A. Van Vleck Assistant Attorney General, for the State.



Defendant a dentist, was indicted for indecent exposure of his person in the presence of a young girl, who was in his office for treatment. Several witnesses whose names were not indorsed on the back of the indictment, were examined on behalf of the state. Notice of intention to introduce this evidence was given the defendant, but the sufficiency of this notice is challenged both as to form and substance. In view of the conclusions reached, we do not deem it necessary to consider these objections. For the purpose of proving that the act was willfully and designedly done, the state was permitted to prove, over objections, that defendant at other times and to other persons made indecent exposures of his person. At the time of making his objections defendant, through his counsel, admitted in open court, and in the presence of the jury, that, if the act with which he was charged was done at all, it was designedly done; that it was not accidental, or unintentional, or through inadvertence. Notwithstanding this admission, the court permitted the evidence to be introduced, and in its instructions said, in effect, that these transactions should only be considered for the purpose of showing the intent with which the act was done, and not as establishing the truth of the indecent exposure charged in the indictment. The rule as to the admission of similar acts at other times and with other persons than those charged in the indictment is well understood. The state cannot prove against a defendant any crime not alleged in the indictment, either as a foundation for separate punishment or as aiding the proofs that he is guilty of the crime charged. The exceptions to the rule may be classified as follows: Evidence as to other offenses is competent to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others, and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. These exceptions are illustrated and applied in the following among other cases: State v. Walters, 45 Iowa 389; State v. Jamison, 74 Iowa 613, 38 N.W. 509; State v. Desmond, 109 Iowa 72, 80 N.W. 214; State v. Brady, 100 Iowa 191, 69 N.W. 290; State v. Lewis, 96 Iowa 286, 65 N.W. 295; Staden v. Kline, 64 Iowa 180, 20 N.W. 3; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • Battles v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 30, 1910
    ...People, 204 Ill. 170, 68 N. E. 464; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L. R. A. 193, and elaborate note; State v. Vance, 119 Iowa, 685, 94 N. W. 204; note in 44 Am. Rep. 299-308. See, also, People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348, 65 N. W. 203, 61 Am. St. Rep. 326, and numerous aut......
  • Sorenson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 13, 1909
    ... ... Thereupon the court sentenced this defendant on the first ... count to imprisonment in the Iowa State Penitentiary, at Ft ... Madison, for a period of four years; and on the second, for ... the larceny, the sentence was imprisonment for a period of ... People, 129 Ill. 521, 21 N.E. 821, 4 ... L.R.A. 582, 16 Am.St.Rep. 283; State v. Raymond, 53 ... N.J.Law, 260, 21 A. 328; State v. Vance, 119 Iowa, ... 685, 94 N.W. 204; People v. Sharp, 107 N.Y. 427, 14 ... N.E. 319, 1 Am.St.Rep. 851; People v. Molineaux, 168 ... N.Y. 293, 61 ... ...
  • State v. Knox
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1945 prove defendant guilty of another crime.' Among the supporting authorities cited therein and others so holding are: State v. Vance, 119 Iowa 685, 686, 94 N.W. 204; State Grimm, 221 Iowa 652, 266 N.W. 19; 20 Am.Jur. 289, § 310; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, p. 1089, § 683; Annotation, 3 A.L.R.......
  • The State v. Butler
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1903
    ... ... Dr. Albert Merrill. It could throw no light upon the ... defendant's intent if he made the offer to the witness, ... Dr. Chapman, as testified to by the latter. State v ... Spray, 74 S.W. 851; People v. Sharpe, 107 N.Y ... 466; State v. Fitchette, 92 N.W. 527; State v ... Vance, 94 N.W. 204; People v. Hurley, 58 P ... 814. (5) The court erred in failing to give the instruction ... asked by the defendant, directing the jury to return a ... verdict of "not guilty." The evidence for the State ... conclusively shows that the alleged offer to Dr. Chapman by ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT