State v. Tucker

20 Iowa 508
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 16, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 20 Iowa 508 (State v. Tucker) 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. Tucker, 20 Iowa 508 (iowa 1866).

Opinion

Dillon, J.

competent evi ence. The record shows that five witnesses, in addition to the said Philomela, gave competent evidence before the grand jury, and sufficient, even if hers was excluded, to justify and even require £bem £n(q a bill. To sustain the ruling of the court, the defendant’s attorney cites us to subdivision 4 of section 4691 of the Revision, which provides that the indictment shall be set aside “ when any person other than the grand jurors was present before the grand jury during the investigation of the charge, except as required or permitted by law.”

It is not claimed that the wife “ was present before the grand jury during the investigation of the charge ” against the indictees, except when being examined as a witness.

But the objection is, that she was present as a witness; and the argument to support it is, that being the wife of one of the defendants on a joint charge and indictment, she was incompetent as a witness (Rev., § 3983); that being incompetent as against her husband, she is likewise incompetent as against any co-defendant (1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 334, 335); that from the nature of the charge she cannot testify against her daughter, without at the same time implicating her husband; that being for these reasons incompetent as a witness, she was “ neither required or permitted by law ” to be present during the investigation before the grand jury. It is not necessary to decide [510]*510whether the wife is a competent witness against her husband or the daughter. Even if it be admitted that she is not, still this constitutes no ground for setting aside the indictment. The section of the Revision cited (4691, sub-div. 4), has no reference to such a case.

Its object is to exclude outsiders or spectators from, the grand j ury room.

Whether witnesses are competent is of often a very difficult question of law, and to hold that if the grand jury, in the course of their investigation, happen to examine an incompetent witness, that this will have the effect to vitiate their finding, is going a step further than we are prepared to take. The motion of the daughter to set aside the indictment should have been overruled.

Reversed.

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

Related

State v. Boucher
23 N.W.2d 851 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1946)
State v. . Levy
158 S.E. 94 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
State v. Manley
197 Iowa 46 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
Pick v. State
121 A. 918 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1923)
Hobson v. District Court of Linn County
188 Iowa 1062 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Smith v. State
81 S.E. 912 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
United States v. Nevin
199 F. 831 (D. Colorado, 1912)
State v. Shepherd
106 N.W. 190 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
State v. Woodrow
52 S.E. 545 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)
Chadwick v. United States
141 F. 225 (Sixth Circuit, 1905)
State v. De Groate
98 N.W. 495 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
State v. Coates
41 S.E. 706 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
State v. Baughman
82 N.W. 452 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1900)
Commonwealth v. Woodward
32 N.E. 939 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
State v. Smith
38 N.W. 492 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1888)
State v. . Lanier
90 N.C. 714 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Iowa 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tucker-iowa-1866.