State v. Conroy

• Decision Date: 08 February 1905
• Citation: 102 N.W. 417,126 Iowa 472
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. MICHAEL CONROY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

102 N.W. 417

126 Iowa 472

STATE OF IOWA v. MICHAEL CONROY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 8, 1905

Appeal from Scott District Court.--HON. JAMES W. BOLLINGER, Judge.

THE defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary, and appeals.

Reversed.

Lane & Waterman, for appellant.

Chas W. Mullan, Attorney-General, and Lawrence De Graff, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

OPINION

SHERWIN, C. J.

The burglary in question was committed by one Burrier, a professional. The defendant's guilt, if he be guilty, is and must be based on a general conspiracy to commit the crime charged, in which he had a part. On the trial Burrier was permitted, without objection, to testify to similar crimes committed by him before and after the alleged conspiracy was formed. Had there been objections to the testimony relating to burglaries committed before the conspiracy and to the testimony relative to other burglaries that were not claimed to have been a part of the general plan, there could be no question as to the inadmissibility of such testimony. But a defendant in a criminal case may waive objections to incompetent testimony, and when he does so, by his silence or otherwise, we will not reverse because it has been admitted. There was some evidence tending to prove that the defendant was actively engaged in the general conspiracy alleged, and, in view of a retrial of the case, we shall not express our opinion as to the sufficiency of the evidence corroborating the State's principal witness, Burrier. There were two rulings on the admission of testimony which were erroneous and prejudicial to the appellant, and on account of which we shall have to reverse the case:

The State relied greatly on the testimony of Burrier to connect the defendant with the general conspiracy charged, and it was therefore necessary to prove the relation existing between the two. It was claimed that the defendant had written a letter to Burrier's mistress which tended to prove such relation and the conspiracy afterwards formed. The letter except the signature and address, had been destroyed. There was nothing save the purported signature which tended in any way to prove that the letter was written or signed by the defendant, or with his knowledge, and yet the scrap of paper containing the signature and address was put in evidence, and the witness to whom it was claimed the letter was addressed was permitted to...