State v. Kirkpatrick

38 N.W. 380, 74 Iowa 505, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 44
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided May 22, 1888·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Robinson, J.

This cause was submitted on a transcript of the record entries, appeal-bond and notice of appeal. No argument was made for either party. We infer, from recitals in the record, that defendant was jointly indicted with another for lewdness. He demanded a separate trial, which was refused. In this there was no error, for the reason that the offense of which he was charged was not a felony, and it was within the discretion of the district court to refuse a separate trial. Code, secs. 4012, 4424. Exceptions were taken by defendant to the overruling of a motion for a change of place of trial, and on motion for a new trial. As the grounds of the motions are not shown, we cannot review these rulings. We have examined the record with care, but have found no error. ‘ . Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Kirkpatrick, 38 N.W. 380, 74 Iowa 505, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 44 (iowa 1888).

38 N.W. 380 (State v. Kirkpatrick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Jamison
81 N.W. 594 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1900)
Emery v. State
78 N.W. 145 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)