State v. Wilmoth

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Citation: 63 Iowa 380,19 N.W. 249
• Parties: STATE v. WILMOTH.
• Decision Date: 24 April 1884

63 Iowa 380
19 N.W. 249

STATE
v.
WILMOTH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 24, 1884.

Appeal from Keokuk district court.

The defendant was convicted upon an indictment for burglary, and sentenced to 10 years' confinement in the penitentiary. He now appeals to this court. The facts involved in the points ruled appear in the opinion.

[19 N.W. 249]

Sampson & Brown, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., and G. D. Woodin, for the State.

BECK, J.

1. At a former term the appeal in this case was dismissed on the ground that no notice of appeal was shown. See 15 N. W. REP. 605. At a subsequent term this order was set aside upon a showing that notices of the appeal had been duly served. An amended abstract has been filed setting out the notice of appeal and service thereof, and thereupon the cause has been submitted for decision upon the questions raised by counsel. They will be considered in the order of their presentation.

2. It is first urged that the indictment is not signed by the district attorney or by any other officer in his place, and that it presents two distinct offenses. The indictment in this case is the identical one involved in State v. Ruby, decided at the late June term. The defendants in that and this case were indicted together, and separately prosecuted under the same indictment. The identical objections now under consideration were urged in that case, and were held not to be well taken. See 15 N. W. REP. 848. Nothing new has been said upon these questions in this case. We have no grounds to doubt our former decision; it must be followed in this case.

3. Two others indicted with defendant were tried with him. It is insisted that the court erred in admitttng evidence tending to prove that defendant was guilty of committing a burglary other than the one charged in the indictment. We have been unable to discover that any such evidence was admitted implicating defendant. It is possible that there was evidence tending to show that one or more of the other persons indicted and tried with defendant admitted connection with the other burglary. But this we do not decide. If it be admitted, no prejudice could have resulted to defendant from the evidence.

4. It is next objected that the court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's confessions of guilt, on the ground that they were not freely made, but were elicited through the promises of protection or advantage, and fear of violence and punishment. It is claimed that evidence of such...