70 Iowa 213 | Iowa | 1886
I. It appears from tbe evidence in tbe case that tbe defendant and bis brother, Max Eroelick, boarded
Counsel for appellant contend that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. They do not claim that the wound was inflicted by any person other than the defendant. They claim that the defendant ought'to have been acquitted because he was acting in self-defense. This was a question for the jury to determine, and, in view of all the evidence, which we need not here repeat, we think we ought not to disturb the verdict on this ground. It is true that the evidence shows that the deceased and Hinkleman, his companion, went into defendant’s private room, and, Ohick and Mundbrood following, commenced the fight by a brutal assault upon the defendant and his brother. But it was a fair question for the jury to determine whether the defendant should be excused for the homicide.
II. The court instructed the jury that the defendant might be found guilty of murder in the first degree, murder
III. William Hinkleman was present at the time of the homicide, and he was one of the principal witnesses against
We think, in view of all the facts in this case, that the defendant may have been very seriously prejudiced by this ruling, as bearing upon the question as to whether he should have been acquitted upon the ground of self-defense, and the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
REVERSED.