The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1906-07-26

properly resort to any information at
his command. And as there was no at
tempt to make use of the document as
evidence and as the character thereof
does not appear, we cannot say that
there was prejudicial error. Indeed
the subject matter to which the inter-
rogations related was of little material
ity; and all reference to the document
used might we'll have been withdrawn
from consideration had the defendant
seen fit to move therefore, as the state
rested it's case without bringing for
ward any evidence designed to impeach
the witness.
2. Several requests for instructions
were presented by defendant and refus-
ed. We shall not stop to discuss the
same in detail. AS far as applicable to
the case these were embodied in the
charge given to the jury. Complaint is
also made of several of the instructions
given. One of such only seems to call
for special attention. A brief state
ment of the situa tion is necessary to an
understanding. Evidence of the insur-
ance policy issued on the life of Mrs.
Woodland and in favor of defendant as
beneficiary were introduced by the
state with the avowed purpose of es-
tablishing a motive for the commission
of the crime charged. 1t appears that
defendant and his wife made application
for insurance at the same. time. In the
application of Mrs. Woodard two poll
cies of $4,000 each We're called for. But
one policy was forwarded in response
to her application, however, and there
of defendant and his wife went to the
agent of the company and complained.
Respecting this the agent, as witness
for the state says: 81 told Mrs. Wood
ard lin the presence of defendant) that
l would take the matter up with the
company and thought they would issue
the other certificate, and for her to
take what they had and keep them, and
that if was unable to procure the
other certificate as had agreed they
could then bring them back, and we
would make some arrangements in re-
gard to taking up the note or giving
them back the notes (given for premi-
ums) and taking up the policies. In ad-
dition to this there was evidence on
behalf of the state tending to prove
statements made by defendant within a
effect that they had accepted and paid
for the $4,000 policy; also statements as
to his purpose in respect of the life in
lected. AS witness on his own be-
half the defendant testified that they
(himself and wife) had positively refus-
ed to accept the policy sent forward by
the company and had demanded a re-
turn of his note given for the premium;
that at no time did he consider the
| 1s0ry +l,0l 60 >e IL 20
The thirteenth Instruction was address
it was said: ''If the jury find that the
payable to the defendant, Charles
lieved the said policy Of insurance was
valid and in force at the time the crime
is charged to have been committed, or
even if the said alleged policy of in
surance was void and of no force and
effect, yet if you find that the defendant
thought and believed that said policy
was in force and valid and payable to
him, then such finding by you may be
considered as tending to establish a
motive. THE instruction is complained
Of as error upon two grounds: 1. The
evidence shows conclusively that the
policy of insurance on the life of Mrs
Woodland was not in force, and hence
the subject matter thereof was improp-
erly submitted for the consideration OF
the jury;2. The instruction improper
iy submitted to the jury the question OF
the legal effect Of the conditional de-
livery of the policy to the defendant
and his wife and their retention thereof
That the first ground of contention is
untenable become apparent upon {
moments reflection. 1t was in no sense
material to the issue to prove that the
policy was valid and subsisting obli
cation on the part of the insurer at the
date of death. The subject of such pol
icy became important only as related tt
the question of motive. To establish
motive it was not required that the fac
or state of facts involved should bt
proven; belief on the part of defendant
in the existence of such fact was alone
essential. If therefore the defendan
believed that the policy on the life o
his wife was in force it was sutticien
for the purposes of the case. What w,
have already said respecting the stat,
of the record is sufficient to make i
clear that the question of the belief O
defendant respecting the validity of th'
policy was an open one and hence prop
er to be submitted to the jury. 1t ma,
be added that the portion of the in
struction quoted above was followed b,
the statement that if defendant did no
belive the policy to be in force and tn
jury so found then the existence of sue
policy could not be considered as hav
ing any bearing on the question o
motive.
| Considering that by the initial phr as
of. the instruction as quoted the question
dof the validity of the policy was sub
mitted to the jury for a tinding-and we
think it may have been SO understood
still we are united in the opinion tina
} no prejudice could have resulted there
from to the defendant. AS we hav
J seen, it was immaterial whether or no
the policy issued and which was in the
, hands of defendant was valid obliga
! tion. 1t was enough that the defendan
} believed or did not believe it to be
[ valid. Conceding then as we may tina
the question of validity should not hav,
been submitted, it remains true that
!; under the instruction as whole, tn,
right to consider the policy as bearin.
, upon motive was made to turn upon the
: sof 1f L.