State v. Allnutt
| Decision Date | 07 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 52573,52573 |
| Citation | 158 N.W.2d 715 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Charles Edward ALLNUTT, Appellant. |
L. M. Hullinger and Margaret L. Beckley, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., David A. Elderkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William G. Faches, County Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was charged, tried before a judge and jury, found guilty and sentenced for Breaking and Entering contrary to section 708.8, Code of Iowa. Defendant has appealed. We affirm.
Defendant in his brief says this is the third time we have been asked to review his troubles. See State v. Allnutt, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 266 and State v. Allnutt, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 274. These were all separate charges. Counsel argues that the various acts for which defendant was convicted amounted to no more than boyish pranks or the acts of a drunken derelict incapable of any criminal intent. Just which classification of defendant we are asked to accept we do not know. Defendant's age does not appear in the record. There was no evidence of intoxication.
In the light of defendant's record we are unwilling to accept either as justification for attempted burglary, assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury or breaking and entering.
In the present case there is no conflict in the evidence. The State's case consisted of testimony of two police officers. Defendant offered no evidence.
I. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence we accept the version most favorable to the State. State v. Allnutt, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 266, 267, and authorities cited therein.
Two police detectives while routine checking and driving an unmarked car observed defendant in a parking lot at about 1:15 a.m. Defendant was known to the officers. Defendant was standing by a white or cream colored over beige 1967 Chevrolet II. After several minutes two men approached defendant and conversed with him. One or the other would walk around a building and soon return. One carried 'a bar of some type' about 12 or 15 inches long. One of the men got the bar out of the car. The three left and the detectives radioed police headquarters for help.
The two detectives walked to the end of the parking lot. They had a clear view through an open door into the office building of Ogden and Adams Lumber Company located nearby. Defendant was outside by the door apparently looking in. His two companions were inside. Defendant walked back and forth in front of the building several times.
The two detectives returned to their car and again radioed for assistance. They then separated 'to cover the building and to effect the apprehension of the two people inside.' The two were still in the building. One of the detectives yelled 'police officer.' The two fled leaving behind during their flight three small crowbars. They were soon apprehended by the reenforced police detail.
Defendant was not at the building when the officers returned after their second call for assistance. He was seen walking back into the parking lot. He was stopped and told to remain where he was but while the officer was helping apprehend the other men who were escaping defendant disappeared. He was apprehended several days later.
The office of the lumber company was enclosed by a fence with a double metal gate secured by a chain and padlock. The padlock was broken and the gates unsecured. The hasp and padlock on a double sliding door of the building had been pried off and the doors were partially open. The hasp and padlock on another door had been pried off. Another door giving access to the office had been broken. Inside the office desk doors and cabinets were standing open and papers were scattered about.
There was without question ample evidence of a breaking and entering by the two men seen in the building and ample evidence that defendant was aiding and abetting them. Defendant was charged with breaking and entering 'with intent to commit a public offense, to-wit: Larceny.' There was no evidence that anything was actually stolen. Defendant argues that this 'certainly negates any kind of larceny.' We do not agree. This argument has been made to and considered by us many times. It was thoroughly discussed in State v. Allnutt, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 266, 271, filed February 6, 1968 and rejected. What was said there need not be repeated here. There was evidence from which the jury could find an intent to commit larceny.
II. The jury verdict was returned November 29, 1966. Defendant filed motion for new trial, motion in arrest of judgment and motion for acquittal. The State filed resistance thereto. Defendant's motions were overruled January 10, 1967. Defendant claims error in that the hearing thereon had not been previously set and defendant was not personally present.
Section 777.19, Code of Iowa, requires the presence of a defendant 'at the trial' if a felony is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Abodeely
...States Constitution, Amendment 5, made applicable to the states by Amendment 14. This challenge has been made before in State v. Allnutt (Iowa) 158 N.W.2d 715; Hoskins v. Bennett, 256 Iowa 1370, 1376, 131 N.W.2d 510; Kotek v. Bennett, 255 Iowa 984, 988, 124 N.W.2d 710, appeal dismissed and ......
-
State v. Hinkle
...the intended public offense does not negate burglary as the statute requires only intent. Section 708.1, The Code; see State v. Allnutt, 158 N.W.2d 715, 716 (Iowa 1968). Trial court correctly submitted both burglary and rape under the felony-murder IV. In his final assignment defendant asse......
-
State v. Evans
...appeal. State v. Conrad, Iowa, 191 N.W.2d 648, 649, filed November 11, 1971; State v. Franklin, Iowa, 163 N.W.2d 437, 441; State v. Allnutt, Iowa, 158 N.W.2d 715, 717; State v. Everett, Iowa, 157 N.W.2d 144, We decline to consider defendants' second assigned error but must observe the offic......
-
Furgison v. State
...States Constitution, Amendment 5, made applicable to the states by Amendment 14. This challenge has been made before in State v. Allnutt (Iowa) 158 N.W.2d 715; Hoskins v. Bennett, 256 Iowa 1370, 1376, 131 N.W.2d 510; Kotek v. Bennett, 255 Iowa 984, 988, 124 N.W.2d 710, appeal dismissed and ......