84 Iowa 88 | Iowa | 1891
I. The indictment contains two counts, the first of which is as follows: “The grand
The charge of the court submitted to the jury the question of the guilt of the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree, and of that the appellant complains, and insists that the indictment sufficiently charges no higher offense than that of murder in the second degree. An examination of the indictment shows that it accuses the defendant of having inflicted
It is claimed on the part of the state that the concluding paragraph, “and so the jurors aforesaid, uponi their oaths, do say that he, the said James Andrews,, him, the said Charles O’Connor, in the manner and. form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately,, premeditatedly, and of his malice aforethought, did kill', and murder, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Iowa,” cures the defect. That-paragraph, however, is a formal part of the indictment,., not designed to charge an independent fact, but to express a ‘ conclusion derived from the statement of' alleged facts which preceded it. In a similar case, in-speaking of the material ingredients of the crime .of' murder in the first degree, the supreme court of Ohio-used the following language: “A statement of anyone of these facts or circumstances as a legal result, or by way of inference or conclusion from antecedent, averments, is bad, and fatal to the indictment.” Fouts v. State, 8 Ohio St. 113. That rule was followed in Kain v. State, Id. 316, and Hagan v. State, 10 Ohio St. 459. These cases were cited, and the rule they announced approved, by this court in State v. McCormick, supra. The rule was again followed in State v. Watkins, 27 Iowa, 415, and appears to have been, followed in State v. Knouse, 29 Iowa, 118. It must-now be regarded as the law of the state. See, also, State v. Record, 56 Ind. 107. It was reversible error to put the defendant upon trial for an offense of a.
II. The appellant claims that after the return of the indictment by the grand jury, and at a time when
III. The appellant was marshal of the town of Háwarden at the time of the shooting in controversy, and claims -that what he did was proper, in the discharge of his duties as a peace officer. The twelfth paragraph of the charge relates to that defense, and contains a statement as to the duties and rights of such an officer in regard to the suppression of a riot. The appellant complains of the paragraph on several grounds, which we need’ not state. It is sufficient to say that, as applied to the evidence, the instructions in question could not have been prejudicial for any of the reasons alleged by the appellant.