State v. Young
| Decision Date | 06 April 1898 |
| Citation | 104 Iowa 730,74 N.W. 693 |
| Parties | STATE v. YOUNG. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Woodbury county; George W. Wakefield, Judge.
The defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, and from judgment of imprisonment for life he appeals. Affirmed.H. A. McManus and C. S. Argo, for appellant.
Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant admitted on the trial that he shot and killed George Elliott in the afternoon of December 16, 1896, and sought to justify the act on the plea of self-defense. It appears that, while playing cards in a gambling room with Robinson, a dispute arose, and the latter threw Young to the floor and took his money. Young, who had been drinking, then left, and, after obtaining a revolver by pawning his overcoat, returned, and fired once or twice into the wall, with the purpose, as he says, of so frightening Robinson that he would give back the money taken. Thereupon Young went into the hall, and was followed by Elliott, then in charge of the rooms, who ordered him to go down stairs. Young promised to go, but fired at Elliott, the bullet entering his abdomen and causing death. There is a conflict in the evidence as to who shot first. That of the state tended to show Young first shot Elliott, and the latter then entered the room and procured a revolver, with which he returned and shot Young in the arm. That of the defendant tended to show that Elliott followed Young into the hall in a threatening manner, and shot him in the arm before the latter fired at the deceased. The determination of which was the aggressor was fairly for the jury, and their conclusion has ample support in the evidence.
2. The defendant complains that the instruction submitting the plea of self-defense, while correctly stating the rules applicable thereto, was not as specific as it should have been. The main issue for the jury to determine was which was the aggressor, and this was clearly indicated in the instruction given. If the defendant had desired the attention of the jury to be more particularly called to the circumstances of the transaction, he ought to have requested an instruction to that effect. It is also said that the court did not indicate upon whom was the burden of proof on this issue. Under the evidence and admissions, Young was guilty of murder in the first or second degree, or of manslaughter, and, if not of one of these, was entitled to an acquittal. The jury was told, in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth instructions, that, in order to convict of one of these offenses, it must be found beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense.
3. After stating the rules relating to self-defense, the court added, “Courts and jurors, however, must exercise due caution in applying these principles,” and said that the jury must determine from all the evidence whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is said this caution nullified that which preceded. It is certainly the duty of the jury to exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial