State v. Young
Opinion
The only question presented for our decision, is as to the sufficiency of the indictment under the statute quoted. The appellant’s counsel claim that extortion or pecuniary advantage are the principal and necessary ingredients in the offense, and must be charged in the indictment, or it is bad.
The indictment is sufficient. The statute defines the crimes and prescribes the penalty for the doing of either one of two things: First, to maliciously' threaten, etc., with intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage; second, to maliciously threaten, etc., with intent to compel the person threatened to do an act against his will. This indictment charges the latter. For the purpose of showing the true interpretation of the statute and that the offense charged is within it, the section may be read [124]*124so as to omit tlie language applicable to tbe first offense above specified, as follows: If any person verbally * * maliciously threaten * * to do any injury to the person of another, with intent * * to compel the person so threatened to do any act against his will, he shall be punished, etc. That this is the correct construction of the statute we have no doubt.
. Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
26 Iowa 122 (State v. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.