State v. Dunn, No. 54935

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtRAWLINGS
Citation199 N.W.2d 104
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kenneth Paul DUNN, Appellant.
Decision Date29 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. 54935

Page 104

199 N.W.2d 104
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Kenneth Paul DUNN, Appellant.
No. 54935.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June 29, 1972.

Page 105

Dennis D. Damsgaard, of Christoffersen & Damsgaard, Cedar Falls, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Allen J. Lukehart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David J. Dutton, County Atty., for appellee.

RAWLINGS, Justice.

Defendant, Kenneth Paul Dunn, was charged with arson of personal property, tried, convicted and sentenced. He appeals. We reverse.

The case before us for review is of such nature as to necessitate a prefatory statement of substantive facts disclosed by the record.

Absent any evidence introduced by defendant we are confined to testimony elicited from State's witnesses.

Arnold C. Marsh, investigating deputy sheriff, Black Hawk County, went to Holman woods October 12, 1970, and there found an almost completely burned white 1970 Ford LTD. A license plate, found about 12 feet away, bore what appeared to be #38--2095. In the presence of detective Morelock, this witness talked with defendant who stated he took the car and burned it, having been hired and partially paid by Glen Rogers (owner) to do so, and that Ronnie Holman had accompanied him.

Fellow deputy Carl Perigo joined Marsh, October 12th, at the Holman woods burned car scene. They returned the next day and there located another license plate bearing #38--2085.

Page 106

September 28, 1970, Leland Baruth, Waterloo police dispatcher, received a call from Glen Rogers reporting his 1970 white Ford LTD was missing.

Patrolman Steven Dwyer went, at once, to Crossroads Shopping Center and there contacted Rogers in Penney's parking lot.

Paul F. Bettenga, county treasurer, testified his records, copies thereof being identified, disclosed the title certificate to a 1970 white Ford LTD, with given vehicle number, had been issued on application of Glen Clarence Rogers, with license plates #38--2085.

Other witnesses testified the burned car was towed in by Callies', but no identification numbers were found on it.

Glen Rogers stated, on September 28, 1970, he owned a white, black vinyl top, 1970 Ford LTD, then insured by Hawkeye Security Insurance Company. He knew Dunn, but denied any agreement with him to take and dispose of the car. Rogers said he had seen the white Ford LTD once since September 28th, at a distance, then said a car at Callies' 'didn't look like mine, if it was mine.'

Dale M. Thompson, Hawkeye Security Insurance Company representative, stated his employer had issued coverage on Rogers' 1970 Ford. Over incompetent, irrelevant, and at times hearsay or not the best evidence objections, this witness also repeated statements allegedly made to him by Rogers on October 14, 1970. These answers were permitted on the apparent theory that if a conspiracy be established as between Dunn and Rogers, then any hearsay statements made to Thompson by Rogers would be admissible.

October 12, 1970, David R. Nagle, assistant county attorney, questioned Dunn, who then stated he, by prearrangement with Rogers, picked up the latter's car 'at Penney's at the Crossroads', took it to Holman woods and there set fire to the vehicle. Rogers was to collect insurance on his car and agreed to pay Dunn $500 of which $135 had been received. Later the same evening, in the presence of Nagle, Marsh, Morelock and Rogers, defendant repeated his statement to Nagle but then claimed Rogers had agreed to pay $300.

Ronnie Dean Holman, 17, testified in return for a controversial promise of immunity by the county attorney and Rogers' insurance carrier. This witness was riding with defendant September 28, 1970. They went to Crossroads Shopping Center. There Holman was told by Dunn he had an arrangement with Glen C. Rogers to pick up his automobile for which Dunn was to be paid $500. Defendant then stated he was taking Rogers' car to Holman woods. About an hour later Holman went there, saw defendant pour gas on the inside of a 1970 white Ford LTD and set fire to it. They then left.

Defendant here contends trial court erred in overruling his motions (1) for a directed verdict, (2) in arrest of judgment, (3) for a new trial.

I. In support of his first assignment defendant urges, the state failed to prove he (a) set fire to or burned a car owned by Rogers, (b) willfully and maliciously set fire to or burned Rogers' automobile.

These claims will be separately considered.

With regard to sufficiency of evidence as to ownership and burning of the car, we view all testimony in that light most favorable to the State, accepting as established all reasonable inferences tending to support the fact finder's (usually jury's) action. Only the supporting evidence is considered, even if contradicted. It is for the fact finder, not us, to determine credibility of witnesses and decide questions of fact. A finding of guilt is binding on this court unless without substantial support in the record. E.g., State v. Hackett, 197 N.W.2d 569 (Iowa) (opinion filed May 11, 1972); State v. Jennings, 195 N.W.2d 351,

Page 107

357 (Iowa); State v. Beer, 193 N.W.2d 530, 531 (Iowa).

Also, 'In a criminal action the cause should be submitted to the jury and the court should not direct a verdict of acquittal if there is any substantial evidence reasonably tending to support the charge.

'Either direct of circumstantial evidence, or both, on each and every essential element to conviction is sufficient to warrant a finding of guilty, if it satisfies triers of facts beyond a reasonable doubt. For this purpose circumstantial evidence may be equal in value to and sometimes more reliable then direct evidence. However, where circumstantial evidence alone is relied on as to any one or more of essential elements the circumstance or circumstances must be entirely consistent with defendant's guilt and wholly inconsistent with any rational hypothesis of defendant's innocence and so convincing as to exclude a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the offense charged.' State v. Johnson, 196 N.W.2d 563, 566.

Mindful of the foregoing we look again to the factual situation. In brief it discloses Rogers owned a 1970 white Ford LTD; taken by defendant from Penney's parking lot at Crossroads Shopping Center, Waterloo; it was removed to Holman woods and set on fire; later there found, almost entirely burned, with the two front wheels missing; a license plate, #38--2085 issued to Rogers, was next day found near the car burning scene.

Viewed most favorably to the State, this clearly sufficed to create a jury issue regarding both ownership and burning of the Ford automobile.

II. Even so, defendant contends the State did not prove he 'willfully and maliciously' set fire to and burned Rogers' automobile.

In material part The Code 1970, Section 707.3, under which defendant was charged, provides:

'Any person who willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned, or who aids, counsels or procures the burning of any * * * car, * * * automobile or other motor vehicle; * * * being the property of another person, shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to the penitentiary for not more than three years, or be fined not to exceed one thousand dollars.'

In support of his instant position defendant argues:

'A reading of the entire record will fail to show any direct evidence, or any circumstantial evidence, from which an inference could be drawn that there was any ill will or malice on the part of Dunn towards Rogers.'

In taking this position defendant erroneously assumes the State was instantly required to prove burning of the car stemmed from personal hostility or revenge on the part of Dunn towards Rogers.

As here employed 'willfully' means purposely, deliberately, intentionally. See State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State v. Davis, No. 17070
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 15, 1987
    ...an intentional as distinguished from an accidental burning and without lawful reason, cause, or excuse, as illustrated by State v. Dunn, 199 N.W.2d 104, 107 (Iowa "As here employed 'willfully' means purposely, deliberately, intentionally.... "And the word 'maliciously', when used in a legis......
  • Brown v. State, No. 45
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 20, 1979
    ...660 (1928); State v. Lockwood, 1 Boyce 28, 74 A. 2 (Del.1909); Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843 (1932); State v. Dunn, Page 475 199 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 1972); State v. Willing, 129 Iowa 72, 105 N.W. 355 (1905); Jillson v. Commonwealth, 461 S.W.2d 542 (Ky.1970); Commonwealth v. Lamothe,......
  • State v. Milliken, No. 55606
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 21, 1973
    ...deemed unnecessary. V. Our review of the whole record reveals defendant was not accorded a fair trial. See Code § 793.18; State v. Dunn, 199 N.W.2d 104, 110 (Iowa 1972). His new trial motion should have been Reversed and remanded for a new trial. ...
  • State v. Kennedy, No. 56458
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 18, 1974
    ...the particular crime has actually been committed by someone. See Furgison v. State, 217 N.W.2d 613, 616 (Iowa 1974); State v. Dunn, 199 N.W.2d 104, 108--109 (Iowa 1972); State v. Cristani, 192 Iowa 615, 616--617, 185 N.W. 111, 112 (1921); State v. Millmeier, 102 Iowa 692, 698, 72 N.W. 275, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State v. Davis, No. 17070
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 15, 1987
    ...an intentional as distinguished from an accidental burning and without lawful reason, cause, or excuse, as illustrated by State v. Dunn, 199 N.W.2d 104, 107 (Iowa "As here employed 'willfully' means purposely, deliberately, intentionally.... "And the word 'maliciously', when used in a legis......
  • Brown v. State, No. 45
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 20, 1979
    ...660 (1928); State v. Lockwood, 1 Boyce 28, 74 A. 2 (Del.1909); Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843 (1932); State v. Dunn, Page 475 199 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 1972); State v. Willing, 129 Iowa 72, 105 N.W. 355 (1905); Jillson v. Commonwealth, 461 S.W.2d 542 (Ky.1970); Commonwealth v. Lamothe,......
  • State v. Milliken, No. 55606
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 21, 1973
    ...deemed unnecessary. V. Our review of the whole record reveals defendant was not accorded a fair trial. See Code § 793.18; State v. Dunn, 199 N.W.2d 104, 110 (Iowa 1972). His new trial motion should have been Reversed and remanded for a new trial. ...
  • State v. Kennedy, No. 56458
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 18, 1974
    ...the particular crime has actually been committed by someone. See Furgison v. State, 217 N.W.2d 613, 616 (Iowa 1974); State v. Dunn, 199 N.W.2d 104, 108--109 (Iowa 1972); State v. Cristani, 192 Iowa 615, 616--617, 185 N.W. 111, 112 (1921); State v. Millmeier, 102 Iowa 692, 698, 72 N.W. 275, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT