State v. Reed

• Decision Date: 18 October 1883
• Citation: 17 N.W. 150,62 Iowa 40
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. REED.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

62 Iowa 40

17 N.W. 150

STATE OF IOWA

v.REED.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 18, 1883.

Appeal from Sac district court.

The defendant was convicted of entering, without breaking, a dwelling-house in the night-time with intent to commit larceny, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for four years. From the judgment he appeals.J. N. Davies and B. A. Dolan, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ADAMS, J.

1. The prosecuting witness in this case is one Brady. The evidence shows very clearly that some one entered his house during the night with intent to commit larceny. The doubt as to the defendant's guilt, if any, arises upon the question of identity. Both Brady and wife saw the person who entered the house, and thought that they recognized the defendant as that person. On the other hand, the defendant introduced evidence tending to show that he was elsewhere on the night in question, and could not have committed the crime with which he was charged. As pertinent to this evidence, the defendant asked an instruction in these words: “As regards the defense of alibi, the jury are instructed that the defendant is not required to prove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt to entitle him to an acquittal. It is sufficient if the evidence on that point raises a reasonable doubt of his presence at the time and place of the crime charged. In other words, to establish an alibi it is not necesssary that the jury should be fully satisfied of its truth.” The court refused to give this instruction, and instructed as follows: “If there is any reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of the crime charged against him, on the whole evidence, he is entitled to an acquittal.”

The defendant, we think, has no reasonable ground of complaint because the court refused to instruct as asked. The instruction asked is not, we think when taken altogether, as favorable to the defendant as the one given. It is, of course, true that to establish an alibi it is not necessary that the jury should be fully satisfied of its truth. It would be sufficient if the evidence of an alibi preponderates. The doubt is as to whether even that amount is necessary to justify an acquittal. Chief Justice DAY and myself think that the defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the evidence of the alibi is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. But I understand the court below as substantially so ruling. I think it would have been impossible for the jury,...