State v. Boyd, 34963.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: STEVENS
• Citation: 196 Iowa 226,194 N.W. 177
• Parties: STATE v. BOYD.
• Docket Number: No. 34963.,34963.
• Decision Date: 22 June 1923

196 Iowa 226
194 N.W. 177

STATE
v.
BOYD.

No. 34963.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 22, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, Van Buren County; Seneca Cornell, Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the court below of the crime of receiving stolen property. From a judgment sentencing him to the penitentiary for a term of not to exceed five years, he appeals.

Reversed.

[194 N.W. 177]

Lloyd L. Duke, of Ottumwa, Hugh B. Sloan, of Keosauqua, and W. S. Allen, of Fairfield, for appellant.

Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., Neill Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ralph H. Munro, Co. Atty., of Fairfield, for the State.

STEVENS, J.

[1] The defendant is the same as the defendant in State v. Boyd, 191 N. W. 84. Many of the propositions relied upon for reversal in this case were decided adversely to the contention of appellant in the prior case and as to all such propositions the decision is controlling. A witness who was present when the search was made of the premises of the defendant for stolen goods testified that he saw some rifles and guns setting by the door, and that there was a revolver lying on the counter. Just what relevancy of materiality the state claims for this testimony does not appear. The objection should have been sustained. It is, however, inconceivable that prejudice could have resulted from its admission. So far as is disclosed by the record, it was not referred to in argument, or otherwise pressed upon the attention of the jury.

[2] II. Appellant also complains because he was not permitted to prove a conversation

[194 N.W. 178]

between the witness Hoskinson, the thief who stole and delivered the goods to the defendant prior to the date on which the state claimed an arrangement was made between Hoskinson and appellant, by which the former agreed to steal merchandise and sell it to the latter at his store in Fairfield, and one Freshwater. The conversation referred to, in effect, amounted to a proposition from Hoskinson to Freshwater to assist him in the crime of breaking and entering box cars for the purpose of stealing and selling merchandise, and requested the use of his automobile in carrying out the proposal. The evidence was clearly inadmissible, and the court correctly ruled.

[3] III. The court permitted counsel for the state to cross–examine one of defendant's witnesses as to a previous conviction of the crime of gambling. Counsel was permitted to pursue the inquiry somewhat further than is ordinarily permitted, but he elicited nothing further than the fact of his prior conviction. The ruling does not present a ground for reversal.

[4][5] IV. The defendant also offered evidence of an alibi....