State v. Empey

• Citation: 44 N.W. 707,79 Iowa 460
• Parties: STATE v. EMPEY.
• Decision Date: 08 February 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

79 Iowa 460

44 N.W. 707

STATE

v.EMPEY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 8, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Linn county; J. H. PRESTON, Judge.

Defendant was convicted on an indictment for larceny, and now appeals to this court.Charles J. Kepler, for appellant.

J. Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BECK, J.

1. The abstract upon which the case is submitted to us for decision does not contain a copy of the indictment, or a statement of its contents, nor any part of the evidence. The instructions to the jury are set out in full, and the only objections to the judgment are based upon the fourth instruction, which is in the following language: “(4) It is not claimed by the state that the defendant was actually present and assisted in the taking of said property, but that he planned, aided, and abetted the taking and disposition thereof; and, under the law of this state, all persons concerned in the commission of a public offense, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet its commission, though not present, are equally guilty as the person who did actually commit the act; and if you find from the evidence that the witness Frank Watkins, at the time or place charged, did steal, take, and carry away said property, or some portion thereof, that the same was the property of M. D. Snyder, and of the value of ninety dollars, or of some actual value, then said Watkins is guilty of larceny; and if you further find from the evidence that defendant planned, aided, or abetted the commission of said larceny, though not present at its commission, then he is equally guilty as Watkins; or if you find therefrom that, after the commission of said act, the defendant aided, abetted, or assisted said Watkins in the disposition of said property, then he will be guilty. If you fail to so find, then you will find the defendant not guilty.”

2. It is first insisted that this instruction errs in directing the jury that, if defendant aided or abetted the commission of the larceny, he is equally guilty with the one who actually stole the goods. The error, it is urged, consists in the use of the disjunctive conjunction “or,” instead of the conjunction “and.” We think the words “aid” and “abet” are not synonymous, as is argued by the attorney general. To “abet” is to encourage, counsel, incite, or instigate the commission of a crime. The word indicates the act of an accessory before the fact. To “aid” is to support,--the words describing the...