State v. Becker
| Decision Date | 11 March 1913 |
| Citation | 140 N.W. 201,159 Iowa 72 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF IOWA v. HARRY BECKER, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson District Court.--HON. F. D. LETTS, Judge.
FROM judgment convicting him of robbery, the defendant appeals.--Reversed and Remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
J. C Murray and Welch & Welch, for appellant.
George Cosson, Attorney-General and John Fletcher, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
I.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of having robbed one Anderson, and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. It appears that Anderson reached Maquoketa, some thirteen miles from his home, shortly before six o'clock p. m., July 15, 1911, and, after putting his team in the barn of the Chicago House and getting a drink at Hoffman's Saloon, took supper at Sprank's Hotel. He then visited Smith's Saloon, where he drank two or three glasses of beer and proceeded to Hoffman's Saloon. There he met defendant and with him had a "couple beers," and later had another in which Woodhurst joined. The three then went to Smith's Saloon, where they partook of the same beverage once or twice more and returned to Hoffman's Saloon, but, finding it about to close, they proceeded to Peterson's Saloon, where Anderson and defendant each treated, and the latter obtained a pint bottle of whisky, and the former a picnic bottle of beer. Later on, the three, with Hutchins, went to Paine's Restaurant, where Anderson had beans and coffee and the others a regular supper; Anderson paying the bill. They then walked about until near a telegraph pole, where, with the assistance of Bodkin, and perhaps others, the picnic bottle of beer was disposed of. Whether Anderson produced the bottle of whisky on his own motion or on inquiry is in dispute, as is also whether he joined in drinking therefrom. But there is no controversy about it being drank in Sprank's alley. Anderson testified that he had none of it, but walked ahead of the others to the barn where his horses were, and that, as he was standing back of them, he heard some one step on a plank at the doorway (quoting):
I didn't have time to turn, just turn my head, and saw Becker and Woodhurst come in the door, and one of them grabbed me around the arm and the other around my neck. They said nothing. I said, 'Boys ' I thought they was going to wrestle. I said: And they held something to my nose, and the last I remember they threw me down and I was laying here. I don't know how long before I got up. They had something to my nose that smelled awful, a handkerchief. They put it to my nose. I could not move. My hands were back, and I could not move; they were so strong, and I am little, and an old man, and he had his hands in my pocket. I don't know who put his hands in my pocket; one of the two. When I came to, I missed my pocketbook and all of the money which I lost and the money I had in my pocketbook and my checkbook. The same pocketbook and what money I had in Paines' Lunchroom. Somewhere around $ 35 or $ 40, made up in silver and bills. Three tens and a five and had a ten changed or something. I will not swear it was ten or a five that was left. That much silver; I don't know how much silver; I had quite a little.
In the morning, his pocketbook, open and empty, was found near by as were also his checkbook and false teeth. He then sought to have the money restored by the persons named but, failing therein, this prosecution was begun. The defendant and Woodhurst denied having been at the barn at all, and the former testified that one Frost accompanied him home from the alley immediately after the whisky had been consumed. In this he is corroborated by the testimony of Frost and defendant's sister, who said she heard some one talking with defendant on the sidewalk when he reached home, and she, as well as his father and mother, fixed the time at about 12:30 o'clock. Evidence of contradictory statements by the prosecutor was adduced, and to what extent he was under the influence of liquor was in controversy. Also, there was evidence tending to show that the general moral character of defendant Woodhurst and another witness was bad. From the recital, it is apparent that the issue raised by defendant's plea of not guilty was for the jury. As contended, Anderson's testimony was not corroborated, but the law does not require that it should have been. Though he had consumed considerable beer and might have been found to have taken whisky as well, the jury could have concluded that he was not under the influence of liquor sufficiently to deprive him of capacity to appreciate what was going on about him. Defendant and Woodhurst denied all knowledge of the transaction, but their moral character was assailed as being bad, and the jury might have rejected...
To continue reading
Request your trial