Case Name: State of Iowa v. John Baker, Appellant
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1898-10-04
Citations: 106 Iowa 99
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Iowa v. John Baker, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 99–102

Head Matter:
State of Iowa v. John Baker, Appellant.
2 Rape: evidence or complaints. It was testified that the victim of an attempted rape soon after told her mother and another of a pain in the stomach, across her back, and in her throat. Held that this did not relate to the details of the assault.
2 Same: Harmless error. Admission of the statement of the victim of an attempted rape, attributing pain in her stomach to the position of the man’s knees on her abdomen, was harmless, where it was not denied that some one committed the assault, since it did connect accused with it.
8 Curing error Testimony of a constable, arresting one accused of attempted rape, as to what others said to him while in pursuit, went in without objection, and motion to exclude it was overruled. At the close of the examination all such testimony was stricken, and the jury cautioned to disregard it. Held, that the error was cured.
1 Identification: corroboration. An attempted rape was committed near a s'ohool house a few minutes past 8, a. m. Accused left a house one and one-naif miles west at 7:40. A man was seen about a mile east of the school house about 8:40. The victim testified that her assailant wore striped pants and a checkered shirt, and that she scratched his face and hurt his eye. When arrested the same day, accused was so clothed, and his face was scratched and his eye bruised. He pretended ignorance at the time, of the condition of his face and eye, but on the trial explained that a stick struck him while chopping wood that morning. Evidence tended to show that he washed his face after the chopping, and it was uninjured. Held, sufficient to corroborate his identification by her.
Appeal from Slory District Gourt. — Hon. B. P. Birdsall, J udge.
Tuesday, October 4, 1898.
The defendant, having been accused and convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, appeals.
Affirmed.
J. F. Martin and Funston dc Gifford for appellant.
Milton Bemley, Attorney General, and Hubert Bemley for the State.

Opinion:
Ladd, J.
The evidence warranted the jury in finding that some one assaulted Bertha McVey, with the purpose of committing rape, on the morning of May 28, 1896. She identified the defendant as the guilty party. Ho insists, however, that she is not corroborated by other evidence tending to connect him with the commission of the offense. The statute does not fix the quantum, or kind of evidence required, nor is its sufficiency to be determined by excluding the evidence of the injured party. State v. McLaughlin, 44 Iowa, 85. If, considered in connection therewith, the other evidence tends to identify and single out the accused as the perpetrator of the crime,- it is of that character contemplated by the statute, and its sufficiency is to be passed upon by the jury. State v. Watson, 81 Iowa, 380; State v. French, 96 Iowa, 255; State v. Moore, 81 Iowa, 578; State v. Mitchell 68 Iowa, 116; State v. McLaughlin, 44 Iowa, 82. The assault was committed near a school house, a few minutes after 8 o'clock a. m., and the defendant left the farm house of Halteman, where he ate breakfast, one and a half miles west, twenty minutes before eight. A man was seen on the track about a mile east of the school house about one-half hour later. The defendant might have reached the scene of the crime, attempted the outrage, and gone east, as stated by Bertha MeVey. He is shown to have taken dinner with Myers about five miles north, at 2 o'clock p. at., and an hour later to have hired out to work for Mortz one month. The prosecutrix, a girl of thirteen years, testified that the man who assaulted her wore striped pants and checkered shirt, and that she scratched his face and hurt his eye. When arrested on the same day, other witnesses testify the defendant was so clothed, and that his face appeared to have been recently scratched and his eye bruised. He manifested ignorance of the condition of his face and eye when his attention was called to it, but explained on the trial, that, in chopping wood for his breakfast thát morning, a stick flew and struck him in the face. Other evidence tended to show that, after he finished chopping and before eating, he washed his face and it was uninjured. These circumstances tended to identify and point out the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. The weight to be given the explanation of the telltale marks was for the jury. If not accepted, these might well, in connection with the other circumstances mentioned, be deemed corroboration sufficient to meet the requirement of the statute.
II. The record fails to show, as contended, that witnesses testified to the particulars of the complaint made by the prosecutrix. Soon after the assault she told her stepmother and another of a pain in the stomach, across the back and in the throat. This related to her condition, and not to the details of the assault. True, she attributed the pain in the stomach to the position of the man's knees on her abdomen; otherwise no details were given, and this statement alone could not have worked prejudice to the defendant. That an assault had been committed by some one was not controverted. Tbe main issue was whether tbe defendant or some one else was the assailant.
III. Tbe constable making tbe arrest testified to what different persons said to him when in pursuit of tbe accused. Whether this evidence was given in narrative or in response to questions is not disclosed by tbe record. Objections were not interposed, but tbe defendant sought to have tbe answers, after given, excluded. His motions for that purpose were overruled, but, when tbe examination bad been concluded, all such evidence was stricken, and tbe jury cautioned to disregard it. We are unable to discover any just ground of complaint in these rulings. Tbe evidence, while it bad little or no bearing on tbe case, was hearsay, and tbe court might well have sustained tbe motions when made, but, as tbe final ruling bad this effect, fhe appellant is not in a position to complain. Tbe judgment is affirmed.