State v. Wilmoth
| Decision Date | 24 April 1884 |
| Citation | 19 N.W. 249,63 Iowa 380 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. WILMOTH |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Keokuk District Court.
THE defendant was convicted upon an indictment for burglary, and sentenced to ten years confinement in the penitentiary. He now appeals to this court. The facts involved in the points ruled appear in the opinion.
AFFIRMED.
Sampson & Brown, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, and G. D. Woodin, for the State.
I.
At a former trial, the appeal in this case was dismissed on the ground that no notice of appeal was shown. See 15 N.W. 605. [*] At a subsequent trial, 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 therefore the cause has been submitted for decision upon the questions raised by counsel. They will be considered in the order of their presentation.
II. 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 The State v. Ruby, 61 Iowa 86, 15 N.W. 848. The defendants in that case and this were indicted together, and separately tried upon the same indictment. The identical objections now under consideration were urged in that case and were held not to be well taken. 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.
III. Two others indicted with defendant were tried with him. It is insisted that the court erred in admitting 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.
IV. 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 promises of protection or advantage, and fear of violence and punishment. It is claimed that evidence of such confessions, made at four separate times, was admitted. As to the first, said to have been made soon after defendant's arrest, it is sufficient to say that we cannot discover from the record before us that there was proof given that defendant made confessions at that time. It is possible that the evidence shows that one or more of the persons indicted and tried with him did.
As to the confessions next referred to, which were made at the preliminary examination, it is only necessary to say that the court, as we understand the record, excluded all the evidence relating to the proceedings upon the preliminary examination and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial