State v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 16 December 1891
• Citation: 50 N.W. 570,84 Iowa 83
• Parties: THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. J. E. BEASLEY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

50 N.W. 570

84 Iowa 83

THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. J. E. BEASLEY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 16, 1891

Appeal from Fayette District Court.--HON. 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, Attorney General, Thomas A. Cheshire and D. W Clements, for the State.

OPINION

GIVEN, J.

I. 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 the 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 572, 24 N.W. 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 twentieth 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 twentieth day of April, and three others as being at and in the vicinity of West Union on the twentieth 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 the testimony of fifteen 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 twentieth 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. The 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 sa to the degree of evidence necessary to establish the defense of alibi.

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. 5; State v. Reed, 62 Iowa 40, 17 N.W. 150; State v. Rivers, 68 Iowa 611, 27 N.W. 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 knowledge of the truth of it and of the means of proving it, is peculiarly with him. A preponderance of the evidence is the lowest degree of proof upon which issues...