Case Name: The State v. Clark
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1890-06-05
Citations: 80 Iowa 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Clark.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 517–521

Head Matter:
The State v. Clark.
Assault: intent to commit great bodily injury : indictment. An indictment which charges that the defendant did “ make an assault upon one H., with intent * * * to strike and bruise, and did inflict upon the person of said H. a great bodily injury,” is insufficient to charge an assault with infent to commit great bodily injury, since it does not in words charge more than an intent to strike and bruise, — an intent which may exist in the case of a simple assault or assault and battery, — and the great bodily injury alleged to have been committed may have been in excess of the attempt. . [ Robinson, J., and Rothrook, C. J., dissenting.]
Appeal from Bremer District Court. — IIon. Gf. W. Ruddiok, Judge.
Filed, June 5, 1890.
The grand jury of Bremer county returned an indictment against the defendant, the charging part of which is as follows: “The said Edward Clark, on the third day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand, eight hundred and eighty-seven, in the county of Bremer and state of Iowa, did, with a deadly weapon, to-wit, a certain billiard cue, the particular description of which is to this grand jury unknown, which the said Edward Clark then and there held in his hands, make an assault upon one A. B. Haskins, with intent then and there, wickedly, unlawfully, maliciously and feloniously to strike and bruise, and did inflict upon the person of said A. B. Haskins a great bodily injury, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, .against the peace and dignity of the state of Iowa.” Defendant demurred to the indictment, and, the demurrer being overruled, he .pleaded not guilty, and the cause was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury, whereupon the defendant filed his motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment, which being overruled, judgment was entered upon the verdict; to all of which defendant excepted, and from which he appeals, assigning as errors the overruling of his demurrer, of his motion in arrest of judgment, and for new trial, and in pronouncing judgment on the verdict.
Wm. II. MoQlure, for appellant.
E. A. Dawson, County Attorney, and John T. Stone, Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Given, J.
— I. The errors assigned involve the single inquiry whether the indictment charges the assault to have been made with intent to inflict great bodily injury. The indictment must be direct and certain as regards the offense charged. Code, sec. 4298 (McClain's Ann. Code, sec. 5683.) An indictment cannot be aided by intendment, or an omission supplied by construction. The acts necessary to constitute the offense must be, in the manner indicated, set out and averred. State v. Potter, 28 Iowa, 554. The intent charged is to " strike •and bruise," an intent which may exist in a case of simple assault or assault and battery. No intent to inflict-great bodily injury is charged, exceptas it may be inferred from the allegation that he did inflict great bodily injury, but the intention cannot be determined by such inference. Every charge in this indictment may be true, and yet the defendant not be guilty of an assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. He may have committed a battery by striking and bruising, to such an extent as to inflict a great bodily, injury, but it does not follow that he is charged with making the assault with intent to inflict such an injury ; the injury may have been greater than was intended. . We do not think that this indictment charges the offense of an assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury with such a degree of certainty and in such a manner as to •enable a person of common understanding to know that such charge is intended, and the court to pronounce judgment upon the conviction according to the law of the ease. Our conclusion is that the district court erred in not sustaining defendant's demurrer to the indictment, •and the judgment of the district court is, therefore,
Reversed.