State v. Wilcoxen, 36817

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtALBERT, J.
Citation206 N.W. 260,200 Iowa 1250
PartiesSTATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. HARRY WILCOXEN, Appellant
Docket Number36817
Decision Date15 December 1925

206 N.W. 260

200 Iowa 1250

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee,
v.

HARRY WILCOXEN, Appellant

No. 36817

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 15, 1925


Appeal from Fremont District Court.--J. S. DEWELL, Judge.

THE defendant was convicted by a jury under an indictment charging seduction. After a motion for new trial was overruled, he appeals.

Reversed.

Earl R. Ferguson, for appellant.

Ben J. Gibson, Attorney-general, and Neill Garrett, Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.

ALBERT, J. FAVILLE, C. J., and EVANS and MORLING, JJ., concur.

OPINION

[200 Iowa 1251] ALBERT, J.

I.

On the voir dire it was developed that one of the jurors had the county attorney under employment in a civil matter, and the juror was challenged by the defendant on this ground. The material part of Section 13830, Code of 1924, is as follows:

"A challenge for cause may be made by the State or defendant * * * for any of the following causes: * * * 5. Standing in the relation of * * * attorney and client, master and servant, or landlord and tenant, or being a member of the family of the defendant, or of the person alleged [206 N.W. 261] to be injured by the offense charged * * *."

It will be noted in the reading of this section that, if the relation of attorney and client exists between a juror and the defendant, or between the juror and the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, in either event it is cause for challenge, and the fact that the juror and the county attorney stand in the relation of attorney and client is not a cause for challenge, within this section of the Code. We have so held in the case of State v. Carter, 121 Iowa 135, 96 N.W. 710. Further, the record does not show that the juror about whom complaint is made, sat in the trial of the case.

The prosecutrix claims that the seduction charged was brought about by a promise of marriage, based on a previous engagement which extended over some time. To meet this allegation, the defendant offered testimony showing that, during the time prosecutrix claimed the engagement existed, she was constantly in the company of other young men, going about with them at various [200 Iowa 1252] times of the night to dances and public resorts. This testimony was objected to, and the objection sustained. This was error. The evidence was admissible for whatever it was worth on the question of whether or not an engagement existed between these parties, and such evidence was also admissible on the question of her previous chastity. State v. Brown, 86 Iowa 121, 53 N.W. 92; State v. Baldoser, 88 Iowa 55, 55 N.W. 97; State v. Davis, 193 Iowa 651, 187 N.W. 692; State v. Clemons, 78 Iowa 123, 42 N.W. 562; State v. Dolan, 132 Iowa 196, 109 N.W. 609.

II. Defendant tendered testimony to show that prosecutrix was given to the use of indecent language and to the telling of obscene stories. The court held that this testimony was not admissible. We have held otherwise in West v. Druff, 55 Iowa 335, 7 N.W. 636; Boak v. State, 5 Iowa 430; Andre v. State, 5 Iowa 389. See, also, 35 Cyc. 1331 (II). This would also go to the question of whether or not the prosecutrix was of previously chaste character. Chaste character is not limited alone to unlawful sexual intercourse, but means purity of mind and innocence of heart. State v. Valvoda, 170 Iowa 102, 152 N.W. 21; State v. Price, 157 Iowa 412, 138 N.W. 520; State v. Carson, 185 Iowa 568, 170 N.W. 781.

III. The court called the jury in, after they had had the case under consideration for a number of hours, and delivered additional instructions to them, in the absence of the defendant. Section 13806, Code of 1924, provides:

"If a felony is charged, the defendant must be personally present at the trial, but the trial of a misdemeanor may be had in his absence, if he appears by counsel."

It is a settled rule of law that, under these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to be present at the giving of these additional instructions, and the failure to so have his presence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • State v. Trybom, 36244
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 15, 1925
    ...for want of a proper instruction on the issue of accidental killing. A second trial was had, and a like verdict was rendered as before. [200 Iowa 1250] The case is now submitted to us upon the twofold contention on behalf of the defendant: (1) That the evidence is insufficient to sustain th......
1 cases
  • State v. Trybom, 36244
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 15, 1925
    ...for want of a proper instruction on the issue of accidental killing. A second trial was had, and a like verdict was rendered as before. [200 Iowa 1250] The case is now submitted to us upon the twofold contention on behalf of the defendant: (1) That the evidence is insufficient to sustain th......

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