State v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 16 December 1891
• Citation: 84 Iowa 83,50 N.W. 570
• Parties: STATE v. BEASLEY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

84 Iowa 83

50 N.W. 570

STATE

v.BEASLEY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 16, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Fayette county; L. O. HATCH, Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of uttering and publishing as true a certain false, forged, and counterfeit promissory note; he then and there knowing the same to be false, forged, and counterfeit. His motion for new trial being overruled, judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary was pronounced against him, from which judgment he appeals. Affirmed.J. W. Rogers & Son, for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., D. W. Clements, Co. Atty., and Thomas A. Cheshire, for the State.

GIVEN, J.

1. We have examined the transcript upon which this case is submitted with care, and find nothing suggestive of prejudicial errors other than those presented by appellant's counsel in their argument of the case. There is no question but that the promissory note set out in the indictment is a forgery, and that it was uttered and published as true to one David Bell at West Union, Fayette county, Iowa, on the 20th day of April, 1889, and that the party passing it as true represented himself to be the payee of the note. Such representation is sufficient evidence of intent, without other evidence that he had knowledge of the forgery. State v. Williams, 66 Iowa, 573, 24 N W. Rep. 52. The one disputed fact in the case is whether it was this defendant who passed the note to David Bell. The defense relied upon is an alibi, the defendant claiming to have been in Green county, Ind., on and for several days before and after the 20th day of April, 1889. David Bell identified the defendant as the person who sold him the note. Two other witnesses identify him as being with David Bell on the said 20th day of April, and three others as being at and in the vicinity of West Union on the 20th day of April, and for several days preceding that date. The state also introduced evidence tending to show that an indorsement upon a certain other promissory note was made by the defendant, and that the writing in said note and indorsement was in the same hand, and written by the same person, as the handwriting of the note, and indorsement thereon, set out in the indictment. The defendant introduced testimony of 15 witnesses, residents in Green county, Ind., who testify to his being at certain places in that county on April 20, 1889, and for several days prior and subsequent to that date. It is apparent from the testimony that it was impossible for the defendant to have been in West Union, Iowa, at the time the note was passed to Mr. Bell, on the 20th day of April, 1889, and at the places in Green county, Ind., where a number of his witnesses testify he was on that day. There is a decided conflict in this testimony, and a decision upon the question at issue depends upon the weight and credit to be given to it. Appellant's counsel discuss at length the weight and credit to be given to this testimony, in the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed, and also the rule as to the degree of evidence necessary to establish the defense of alibi.

2. It is conceded to be the rule in this state that the burden is upon the defendant to prove a defense of alibi by a preponderance of evidence. State v. Hamilton, 57 Iowa, 596, 11 N. W. Rep. 5;State v. Reed, 62 Iowa, 40, 17 N. W. Rep. 150;State v. Rivers, 68 Iowa, 611, 27 N. W. Rep. 781. It is contended, however, that a preponderance of evidence should not be required in such case; that, if the defense is supported by evidence that causes a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, that should be sufficient. This subject was fully discussed and considered in the cases cited, and we see no reason for changing the rule therein announced by the majority. We may add that this defense is more easily and more frequently fabricated than any other. The burden of proving it is upon the accused, because the...