defendant to rebut presumption in Iowa

1937The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill. 447 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 [ Gil. 448 ]; Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Hague v. State, 34 Miss. 616 ; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; State v. Johnson, 3 Jones (48 N. G.) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Add. [Pa.] 255. “2.

1874The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill., 447 ; The State v. Brown, 12 Minn., 538 ; Clarice v. The State, 35 G-eorgia, 75; The State v. McDonnell, 32 Yt, 491; Haynev.

1937The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill. 447 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 [ Gil. 448 ]; Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Hague v. State, 34 Miss. 616 ; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; State v. Johnson, 3 Jones (48 N. G.) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Add. [Pa.] 255. “2.

1874The State, 34 Miss., 616 ; The State v. Qillech, 7 Iowa, 218 ; The State v. Knight, 43 Maine, 11; The State v. Johnson, 3 Jones, (N. C.,) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Addison, 253. 2.

1937The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill. 447 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 [ Gil. 448 ]; Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Hague v. State, 34 Miss. 616 ; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; State v. Johnson, 3 Jones (48 N. G.) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Add. [Pa.] 255. “2.

1874The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill., 447 ; The State v. Brown, 12 Minn., 538 ; Clarice v. The State, 35 G-eorgia, 75; The State v. McDonnell, 32 Yt, 491; Haynev.

1966State v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa 169, 174 , then declared as follows: “* * * the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: * * #. “* * * the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: * * Then in State v. Townsend, 66 Iowa 741, 746 , 24 N.W. 535 , we said: “The court instructed the jury that malice ‘is proved by the selection and use of a deadly weapon, in a deadly manner, without legal excuse.’ The giving of this instruction is assigned as error.

1966State v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa 169, 174 , then declared as follows: “* * * the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: * * #. “* * * the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: * * Then in State v. Townsend, 66 Iowa 741, 746 , 24 N.W. 535 , we said: “The court instructed the jury that malice ‘is proved by the selection and use of a deadly weapon, in a deadly manner, without legal excuse.’ The giving of this instruction is assigned as error.

1966State v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa 169, 174 , then declared as follows: “* * * the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: * * #. “* * * the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: * * Then in State v. Townsend, 66 Iowa 741, 746 , 24 N.W. 535 , we said: “The court instructed the jury that malice ‘is proved by the selection and use of a deadly weapon, in a deadly manner, without legal excuse.’ The giving of this instruction is assigned as error.

1952In re: Lundvall’s Estate, 46 N.W.2d 535 . “3.

1945Co., 205 Iowa 730, 735 , 218 N. W. 343, 346 , where it is said: *406 ‘ ‘ It was upon the defendant to rebut that presumption, and to show that the injury and resulting damage were not caused by any act* or omission on the part of the owner of the transmission line.” Citing the Walters case.

1945Co., 205 Iowa 730, 735 , 218 N. W. 343, 346 , where it is said: *406 ‘ ‘ It was upon the defendant to rebut that presumption, and to show that the injury and resulting damage were not caused by any act* or omission on the part of the owner of the transmission line.” Citing the Walters case.

1941State v. Icenbice, 126 Iowa 16 , 101 N. W. 273 ; State v. Storms, 113 Iowa 385 , 85 N. W. 610 , 86 Am.

1941State v. Icenbice, 126 Iowa 16 , 101 N. W. 273 ; State v. Storms, 113 Iowa 385 , 85 N. W. 610 , 86 Am.

1941State v. Icenbice, 126 Iowa 16 , 101 N. W. 273 ; State v. Storms, 113 Iowa 385 , 85 N. W. 610 , 86 Am.

1941State v. Icenbice, 126 Iowa 16 , 101 N. W. 273 ; State v. Storms, 113 Iowa 385 , 85 N. W. 610 , 86 Am.

1937The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill. 447 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 [ Gil. 448 ]; Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Hague v. State, 34 Miss. 616 ; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; State v. Johnson, 3 Jones (48 N. G.) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Add. [Pa.] 255. “2.

1937And the following eases very directly decide that the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: 1 Wheaton Criminal Law, section 944; Com. v. Drew, 4 Mass. [391] 396; State v. Merrill, 2 Dev. (13 N. C.) 269; Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf. [Ind.] 299; Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 198 ; State *1140 v. Decklotts, 19 Iowa 447 ; Bivens v. State, 6 Eng. (11 Ark.) 455; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., Sec. 14; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 .” In the case of State v. Woodmansee, 212 Iowa 596 , at page 611, 233 N. W. 725, 733 , this court said: “ ‘But it is contended that as to the first degree (murder)

1937And the following eases very directly decide that the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: 1 Wheaton Criminal Law, section 944; Com. v. Drew, 4 Mass. [391] 396; State v. Merrill, 2 Dev. (13 N. C.) 269; Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf. [Ind.] 299; Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 198 ; State *1140 v. Decklotts, 19 Iowa 447 ; Bivens v. State, 6 Eng. (11 Ark.) 455; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., Sec. 14; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 .” In the case of State v. Woodmansee, 212 Iowa 596 , at page 611, 233 N. W. 725, 733 , this court said: “ ‘But it is contended that as to the first degree (murder)

1937The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill. 447 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 [ Gil. 448 ]; Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Hague v. State, 34 Miss. 616 ; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; State v. Johnson, 3 Jones (48 N. G.) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Add. [Pa.] 255. “2.

1937And the following eases very directly decide that the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: 1 Wheaton Criminal Law, section 944; Com. v. Drew, 4 Mass. [391] 396; State v. Merrill, 2 Dev. (13 N. C.) 269; Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf. [Ind.] 299; Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 198 ; State *1140 v. Decklotts, 19 Iowa 447 ; Bivens v. State, 6 Eng. (11 Ark.) 455; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., Sec. 14; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 .” In the case of State v. Woodmansee, 212 Iowa 596 , at page 611, 233 N. W. 725, 733 , this court said: “ ‘But it is contended that as to the first degree (murder)

1937The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill. 447 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 [ Gil. 448 ]; Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Hague v. State, 34 Miss. 616 ; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; State v. Johnson, 3 Jones (48 N. G.) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Add. [Pa.] 255. “2.

1937The following authorities show that the law implies malice from the mere fact of the killing, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut the presumption in order to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter: Murphy v. The People, 37 Ill. 447 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 [ Gil. 448 ]; Clarke v. State, 35 Ga. 75 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Hague v. State, 34 Miss. 616 ; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; State v. Johnson, 3 Jones (48 N. G.) 266; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Add. [Pa.] 255. “2.

1937And the following eases very directly decide that the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: 1 Wheaton Criminal Law, section 944; Com. v. Drew, 4 Mass. [391] 396; State v. Merrill, 2 Dev. (13 N. C.) 269; Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf. [Ind.] 299; Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 198 ; State *1140 v. Decklotts, 19 Iowa 447 ; Bivens v. State, 6 Eng. (11 Ark.) 455; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., Sec. 14; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 .” In the case of State v. Woodmansee, 212 Iowa 596 , at page 611, 233 N. W. 725, 733 , this court said: “ ‘But it is contended that as to the first degree (murder)

1937And the following eases very directly decide that the use of a deadly weapon is evidence of malice aforethought: 1 Wheaton Criminal Law, section 944; Com. v. Drew, 4 Mass. [391] 396; State v. Merrill, 2 Dev. (13 N. C.) 269; Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf. [Ind.] 299; Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 198 ; State *1140 v. Decklotts, 19 Iowa 447 ; Bivens v. State, 6 Eng. (11 Ark.) 455; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., Sec. 14; State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 .” In the case of State v. Woodmansee, 212 Iowa 596 , at page 611, 233 N. W. 725, 733 , this court said: “ ‘But it is contended that as to the first degree (murder)

1886In a criminal case involving the fact of marriage, this court has held “that the testimony of either husband or wife, together with proof of continued cohabitation as husband and wife, raises such a presumption of an actual legal fact as to make it incumbent on the defendant to rebut such presumption.” State v. Wilson, 22 Iowa, 364 ; Kilburn v. Mullen, Id., 498 ; State v. Williams, 20 Id., 98. 6. inrsTituctions: proper subjects of.

1886In a criminal case involving the fact of marriage, this court has held “that the testimony of either husband or wife, together with proof of continued cohabitation as husband and wife, raises such a presumption of an actual legal fact as to make it incumbent on the defendant to rebut such presumption.” State v. Wilson, 22 Iowa, 364 ; Kilburn v. Mullen, Id., 498 ; State v. Williams, 20 Id., 98. 6. inrsTituctions: proper subjects of.