State v. Kirkpatrick

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Kirkpatrick

38 N.W. 380, 74 Iowa 505, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 44

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedMay 22, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 N.W. 380 (State v. Kirkpatrick) 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.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.W. 380, 74 Iowa 505, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kirkpatrick-iowa-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack