State v. Cowan
| Citation | 36 N.W. 886,74 Iowa 53 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. COWAN |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1888 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Decided December, 1887
Appeal from Franklin District Court.--HON. H. C. HENDERSON, Judge.
THE defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Hardin county for the crime of embezzlement. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, and procured a change of place of trial to Franklin county. There he was tried, convicted and adjudged to pay a fine of $ 6,154.38, and to be imprisoned in the penitentiary at Anamosa for the term of four years. From this judgment defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
George W. Ward and Fred. Gilman, for appellant.
A. J Baker, Attorney General, for the State.
I.
Appellant complains of the refusal of the court to give instructions asked by him, in language as follows: We do not understand that the evidence on the part of the state was wholly, or even in large part circumstantial. Much of it was positive and direct in support of the material issues presented by the indictment. Hence, the first instruction asked was not true in fact, and was properly refused. The second instruction asked was based in part upon the erroneous assertions of the first. The facts of the case did not warrant the giving of the second instruction, even if conceded to be correct in the abstract. "The proved circumstances in evidence" should not have been considered alone by the jury, but rather with all facts, both admitted and proven, which bore directly upon the question of the defendant's innocence or guilt. The jury were properly charged by the court as to the necessity of establishing the guilt of defendant beyond a reasonable doubt before he could be found guilty, and as to what would constitute such a doubt. We do not discover any just ground to complain of the refusal of the court to give the instructions asked.
II. It is said on the part of appellant that the evidence does not justify the verdict; that there is no direct evidence of the conversion of public funds, and no evidence that defendant did not properly account, on sufficient demand, for all moneys he had received in his official capacity. It was clearly shown and not denied that defendant was treasurer of Hardin county during the time in controversy; that, as such treasurer, he had collected a large sum of money which he did not pay over at the end of his official term to his successor in office, and which had not been rightfully paid out previous to the termination of his office; that a settlement of his accounts was made at the close of his term of office, which resulted in the discovery of a large deficiency; that attempts had been made to conceal the deficiency by means of fraudulent vouchers and false representations in the books of his office; and there was evidence which tended to show that defendant was responsible for these illegal vouchers and entries, with fraudulent intent. Other facts which tended to prove the issues on the part of the state, but which we need not specify, were proven. The defendant, who testified in his own behalf, did not deny the deficiency, nor the fraudulent vouchers and entries referred to, but attempted to shift all criminal responsibility for them from himself to another. The jury decided against defendant on that issue, found him guilty as charged, and fixed the amount of the sum embezzled at $ 6,154.38. We think their verdict was authorized by the evidence.
III. After verdict, and before judgment, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. One of the grounds of the motion is alleged misconduct in the jury-room. When...
To continue reading
Request your trial