The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1906-07-26
THE COURTS OPINION
Full Text of the Supreme Courts
Opinion in the Charles Wood
ard Case which was affirmed.

tne Iull OPINION OF the Iowa supreme
Court in overruling the motion for q
new trial in the case of Charles Wood
ard who was convicted in the Decatur
district court of murder in the first
degree, it being charged that he poison
ed his wife with strychnine, and he was
sentenced to life Imprisonment in the
state penitentiary at Ft. Madison. The
opinion is rather disappointment tc
Mr.. Woodlands attorneys who were con-
| fident he would secure new trial. The
opinion does not discuss the questions
considered most vital by his attorneys,
the disqualification of the juror Charles
Mills and the instructions asked for by
the defendant, and motion for re-
hearing in which the supreme court
Twill be asked to pass upon these errors
fis now being prepared.
The opinion which was written by
Justice Bishop is as follows:
| The deceased was the wife of the de-
| fendant. The state relied for convic.
tion upon circumstantial evidence, and
one of the circumstances was that de-
fendant held a policy of insurance on
the life of his wife. 1t was conceded
that policy had been issued payable to
defendant as beneficiary and that such
policy was in his possession at the time
of the death of his wife. A. r. Shrimp
lin, agent of the insurance company, as
a witness for the state, testified to the
issuance of the policy, and the giving OF
a premium note in consideration thereof
and that subsequent to the death of
| Mrs. Woodland he returned such
premium note to defendant and took up
the policy. Without objection the wit
ness further stated that as far as he
knew the policy was in force from the
| time of it's issuance until it was taken
up. On cross-examination the witness
was asked if at some time he had not
been notified by his company that the
policy was void. To this an objection
was interposed and sustained and the
ruling is assigned as error. AS the ruI-
ing was put upon the express ground
that the question was not limited
to the time before the death of Mrs
| Woodland we think there was no error
if the subject matter was of any materi-
ality whatsoever, it was of no moment
to inquire what attitude the company
assumed after the death of the insured
And following the ruling, counsel die
not see fit to limit his question to con
lorm thereto.
I I A further witness for the state, G. B
Townsend, testified that as local agent
for the insurance company he made de-
livery of the policy on the life of Mrs
Woodland. On cross-eXamination the
witness was asked if Mrs. Woodland had
not stated at the time of delivery that
she would not accept the policy unless
an additional policy for which she had
made application was issued and de-
livered to her. The question was ruled
out Oh an objection, and of this defend
ant complains as error. Turning ovel
the page Of the abstract we fine
that in answer to a further ques
the very fact called for by the question
any, was therefore not prejudicial.
1t was the theory of the state thai
Mrs. Woodland died of strychnine poison
ing. One witness for the state wa!
permitted over objection to testify tina
some two years before the crime alleg
ed the defendant had told her that h,
had strychnine in his possession ant
that he always kept it on hand. An
other witness was permitted to testif,
that in the year 1890 defendant had tol.
him that he had strychnine inEhis pos
session and that he displayed package
1t is insisted by counsel that such testi
mony should have been excluded be
cause of the remoteness Of the time re
ferred to. We think otherwise. Tht
lapse of time had bearing only on th
weight to be given the testimony, an
that was subject for the considerable
of the jury.
The defendant called as witness hi
son sixteen years of age. 1t appear
that such witness had been called be
fore the grand jury and had ther'
testified, but his name was not endorse
on the Indictment nor was his testimon
returned Herewith. On cross-examina
tion of the witness the county attorne
sought to show that the testimony give
by him on one point was at varianc
with what he had testified to when ase
fore the grand jury. And in connec
tion Herewith the attorney produced
typewriter document from which h
read what purported to be statemen
of fact and the witness was then aske
if he did not testify in accordance wit
such statement when before the graz
jury. The witness was also asked It
read from the document and to sa!
whether he had testified before th
grand jury in language as containe
therein. Defendant protested by OK
lection to the character of the examins
tion and assigns the refusal of the coar
to interfere as error. Demand was ais
made for the right to inspect the docr
ment, and error is predicated upon tn
refusal of the court to order in accord
ance Herewith. The document thu
made use of is not before us. Counse
for defendant assume that it was th
minutes of the evidence of the witnes
as taken before the grand jury, and tn
argument is that as such evidence coul
not be used for the purpose of impeacf
ment it should not have been brough
into the trial for any purpose. 1t
true enough that the minutes, if sue
was the character of the documen
could not have been used for impeach
ment purposes. While we agree wit
the trial court that the examinin
counsel for the purpose of impeachmen
| had the right to assail the testimony {
Il n