62 Iowa 404 | Iowa | 1883
I. The deceased, one Salberg, and a comrade, having been drinking together, were, at the time of the occurrences resulting in the homicide, in an intoxicated condition. The maudlin actions of the deceased provoked taunts of derision from three young men, or boys, as they are called in the testimony, who were near by, which excited his anger and resentment. He ran towards them, climbing over an intervening fence, threatening them or inviting them to
II. This statement of facts is sufficient to introduce the consideration of the alleged errors complained of by defend-
The comrade of the deceased, named Clowson, who was a witness for the state, was shown to be in an intoxicated condition at the time of the fight, and admitted if in his own testimony, which was reasonably clear and direct. He testified in effect that he liad a distinct recollection of the affair. In directing the jury as to the effect of the witness’ condition upon his credibility, the court used the following language:
“The fact that a witness present at the death of Salberg, and testifying as to facts, was under the influence of liquor to any extent, does not affect his credibility, if you find that, at*407 the time be was testifying, be distinctly remembered tbe facts as they occurred. It is tbe truth that tbe law seeks, and tbe condition of tbe witness is immaterial, except as a means of determininig bis ability and desire to know and tell tbe truth. And, if tbe witness now remembers tbe facts, and you believe be tells them truthfully, it does not matter what was bis condition then.”
We think tbe instruction is correct. It does not follow that tbe capacity of observation and the powers of memory are destroyed by intoxication, which is not to tbe degree producing stupor. While it must be admitted that intoxication does not destroy credibility, it undoubtedly impairs it. But, if tbe evidence of one who was intoxicated at tbe time of tbe occurrences of which be testifies is corroborated, or bis recollection of tbe transactions appears to be distinct and clear, be is entitled to belief. This is tbe purport of tbe instruction just quoted. Tbe district court gave to tbe jury other proper directions applicable to tbe case, which enabled the jury to determine tbe weight to be given to Clowson’s evidence.
III. Tbe defendant asked an instruction, tbe refusal of which is now made tbe ground of complaint, which does not
IY. Tbe defendant requested tbe court to instruct the jury that defendant’s intentions in approaching tbe deceased
Y. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
YI. An instruction asked by defendant was to the effect that, if, on account of the diseased condition of Salberg, a
YII. An instruction upon the doctrine of self-defense is
VIII. Counsel for the defendant insist that an instruction defining the crime of manslaughter leaves out of view the
IX. While the' evidence in some degree is conflicting, it sufficiently sujiports the verdict.
We have considered all the points discussed by counsel, and reach the conclusion that the judgment of the district court ought to be
Affirmed.