State v. Corrette
This text of 12 Iowa 358 (State v. Corrette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The applicability of the instruction asked does not appear by bill of exceptions or otherwise. What the testimony was no where appears. If it be granted, as urged by defendant’s counsel, that it should affirmatively [359]*359appear that the persons playing were unknown, it would by no means follow that an instruction would be pertinent, which assumes that the persons playing were shown by the evidence to be known to the grand jurors. Instructions asked should always be applicable and pertinent to the testimony submitted. If there is no testimony warranting the position assumed in an instruction, it should be refused. And when refused, and none of the testimony is before us, we are bound to presume that the refusal was justified.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 Iowa 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-corrette-iowa-1861.