State v. Smith
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Cowrt. — Hon. S. H. Fairall, Judge. Indictment for seduction. At the close of the evidence for the state the court, on motion for the defendant, directed a verdict in his favor, and from a judgment for costs against the state it appeals.—
1Opinion of the CourtGranger, J.
The grounds of the motion of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant are: “First. Conceding all the evidence now before the jury to be true, it is not sufficient in law to sustain a verdict of guilty. Second. The testimony of the prosecutrix is not -corroborated by any other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense of seduction.”
A question presented for our consideration is whether or not there was such corroborating evidence of the prosecutrix that it was error for the court to *523direct a verdict for the defendant. The prosecuting witness testified…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. CurranSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- State v. McClinticSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- State v. BellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. BaldoserSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Slaughter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. NyceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1950
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- State v. HectorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.