State v. Wood

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WATERMAN
• Citation: State v. Wood, 112 Iowa 484, 84 N.W. 503 (Iowa 1900)
• Decision Date: 20 December 1900
• Parties: STATE v. WOOD.

112 Iowa 484

84 N.W. 503

STATE

v.WOOD.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 20, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Madison county; J. H. Applegate and James D. Gamble, Judges.

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Madison county for the crime of perjury. After the indictment was returned he moved to quash it on the ground that “a certain person other than the grand jurors, clerk of the grand jury, and county attorney, and one not required or permitted by law to be present on such an occasion, was present before the grand jury during the investigation which resulted in the finding of the indictment.” This motion was heard by Applegate, J., who overruled it. The case then went to trial before Gamble, J., and there was a verdict of guilty, upon which judgment was duly pronounced. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.Guiher & Tidrick and Dabney & Cooper, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WATERMAN, J.

The only question presented on this appeal is the one raised by the motion to quash the indictment. As to this matter the facts appear to be that Minnie McNeley and her father were summoned to appear as witnesses before the grand jury. Minnie McNeley was very nervous and fearful about appearing before that tribunal, and, on her father's request, he was permitted to be present during the time she gave her testimony. There is no showing that he did or said anything to influence the witness, or that defendant was in any manner prejudiced, otherwise than by McNeley's presence in the room. The secrecy of proceedings by the grand jury is for the benefit of the state, and not of the defendant. It was long the practice in England to admit the private prosecutor to their room during the investigation of the charge which he had preferred. Thomp. & M. Jur. § 629. Section 5319 of the Code, however, provides that it is a ground for setting aside the indictment that “any person other than the grand jurors was present before the grand jury during the investigation of the charge except as required or permitted by law.” Section 5265 permits the county attorney to be present during the sessions of that body, but forbids him or any other person being present when deliberation is had or vote taken up on the finding of an indictment. Section 5267 enjoins secrecy upon all members of the grand jury. We find no other provisions of the Code bearing upon the question before us. Nowhere is it expressly stated that third persons may not be present when witnesses are giving testimony, if the grand jury sees fit to admit them. We may, however, accept section 5319 as prohibiting the presence of all third persons except “as required or permitted by law.” John McNeley was a witness before the grand jury...