State v. Brower

• Decision Date: 11 July 1905
• Parties: STATE v. BROWER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

127 Iowa 687

104 N.W. 284

STATE

v.BROWER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 11, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; O. A. Byington, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction upon an indictment charging him with the crime of burglary. Affirmed.John J. McCue, for appellant.

Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and L. De Graff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WEAVER, J.

The burglary with which the defendant is charged is the breaking and entering of a building owned by one Lloyd, and stealing a horse hide stored therein.

1. The claim of appellant that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence is untenable. The testimony clearly tends to show that the door of the cellar of the building was closed, though not locked, and that some one in the nighttime opened the door and entered the cellar, and stole the hide therefrom. The opening of a closed door, and entrance therein for the purpose of larceny, is burglary. State v. O'Brien, 81 Iowa, 93, 46 N. W. 861. The defendant is shown to have had the hide in his possession a short time after the crime was committed, and to have sold it to another person. His explanation of his possession was contradictory and unreasonable. He did not claim to have owned the hide or to have had any right to sell it, but professed to have found it in the barn of one Kubick, and, supposing it to belong to a friend of his, had sold it as a joke. It was for the jury to consider this explanation, and, to say the least, it is not surprising that they found it unsatisfactory. If the appellant were on trial for the larceny, the possession of the recently stolen goods, without reasonable explanation tending to show it had been otherwise obtained, would have been reasonably sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. This rule is too familiar to require a citation of authorities. It is equally true that, where a larceny has been committed by means of an unlawful breaking and entering, such possession of the goods thus stolen is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the burglary. See State v. Brady, 121 Iowa, 561, 97 N. W. 62, and cases there cited. Under the rule of these precedents, the verdict of the jury has abundant support. The attempt of appellant to prove an alibi was of a very weak and inconclusive character, and the jury was justified in finding that it was not sufficiently established.

2. The further proposition that, as the defendant is charged with breaking and entering a...