State v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 22 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 34963.,34963. |
| Citation | 196 Iowa 226,194 N.W. 177 |
| Parties | STATE v. BOYD. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.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.
[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 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. The witnesses examined in his behalf testified that the goods described in the indictment and referred to in the evidence were purchased by appellant's wife and received by her from Hoskinson during his absence and under the belief upon her part that Hoskinson was a traveling salesman and without any knowledge whatever that the merchandise had been stolen. The court gave the usual alibi instruction with the exception of the following:
“Testimony tending to establish an alibi, being usually from members of the defendant's family and easily manufactured, should be closely scrutinized and carefully considered.”
The portion of the instruction criticized is that relating to the testimony of defendant's family. The wife of appellant was a very material witness in his defense, and her testimony tended to show that appellant was absent upon both occasions when the merchandise was purchased and also when it was received by her at the store. Her testimony was corroborated by that of other witnesses. The portion of the instruction criticized should not have been given. The defense of alibi, although easily manufactured, is nevertheless a legitimate one and is sometimes at least supported by the testimony of witnesses of the highest character. The jury may have misunderstood the purpose and intention of the court in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial