State v. Kreder
This text of 52 N.W. 658 (State v. Kreder) 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 notice provided for by the statute is designed to inform the accused of the evidence which the witness described will give on the trial, that the accused may investigate and prepare to meet it. State v. Rainsbarger, 74 Iowa, 201. A notice to the effect that the state will prove by the witness that the defendant is guilty as charged does not meet the statutory requirement. All witnesses for the state whose testimony is admissible must testify to something which will tend to sustain or controvert the charge contained in the indictment, and as it is not usual for the state to prove the innocence of the accused, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the testimony which the state proposes to offer will tend to establish his guilt. Therefore that part of the notice in question which informed the defendant that the state would prove by the witnesses named that he had maintained the nuisance as charged really added nothing to the information contained in the notice' without it. But the statute requires that the substance of what the state [27]*27expects to prove by the witness be stated. That provision refers to the matter to which the witness is expected to testify, and not to its legal effect. If the notice in this case was sufficient, the requirement that such a notice shall state the substance of the testimony to be given is without force. The rule of interpretation, as applied to statutes, requires that effect be given to every part of them when that can be done; and as it is not only practicable, but most reasonable, to apply that rule to the statute under consideration, we must hold that the notice in question was not sufficient, and that the witnesses therein named should not have been permitted to testify against the objection of defendant.
Other questions discussed by counsel are not likely to arise on another trial,, and need not be determined. For the errors stated the judgment of the district court ÍS REVERSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 N.W. 658, 86 Iowa 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kreder-iowa-1892.