State v. Henry
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Floyd, District Court. An indictment in 'two counts was presented against the defendant, charging him in one count with forging a note of $100, and in the other count with uttering as true the said forged promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Floyd, District Court. An indictment in 'two counts was presented against the defendant, charging him in one count with forging a note of $100, and in the other count with uttering as true the said forged promissory note. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and at the March term, 1881, was tried and convicted on both counts, and sentenced, on the first count to imprisonment for four years, and on the second count to imprisonment for two years, to commence at the expiration of the four years term. The defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
In State v. McCormack, 56 Iowa, 585, this court overruling State v. Nichols, 38 Iowa, 110, held that the forging and the uttering of forged papers could not be united in the same indictment. The decision in State v. McCormack, was announced in April, 1881, which was after the trial of this cause in the court below. In this case the defendant’s attorney, following probably the rule announced in State v. Nichols, interposed neither demurrer, motion to require the State to elect on which count it would proceed, motion in arrest of judgment, objection to evidence, objection to sentence, nor…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Knoll v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- State v. GroomeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- State v. McCormackSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- State v. NicholsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. AikinMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- State v. JensonUtah Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. CallahanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895