State v. Feinberg

• Decision Date: 11 January 1910
• Citation: 145 Iowa 329,124 N.W. 208
• Parties: STATE v. FEINBERG.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

145 Iowa 329

124 N.W. 208

STATE

v.FEINBERG.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 11, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Jesse A. Miller, Judge.

Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. The jury found the value of the property to be more than $25. Affirmed.M. H. Cohen, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lawrence De Graff, Co. Atty., for the State.

DEEMER, C. J.

The stolen property consisted of certain furs or fur garments belonging to one J. A. Weber, and taken from his possession at the town of Neola in Pottawattamie county. According to the testimony, they were stolen by one James J. O'Brien, taken to Des Moines in Polk county, and there sold for a nominal sum to defendant, who was conducting a secondhand store in that city. The state relied almost entirely upon the testimony of the confessed thief, and it is contended that, as he was uncorroborated in any essential particular, there should have been no conviction. Our statute defining the crime reads as follows: “If any person buy, receive or aid in concealing any stolen money, goods or property the stealing of which is larceny, or property obtained by robbery or burglary, knowing the same to have been so obtained, he shall, when the value of the property so bought, received or concealed by him exceeds the sum of twenty dollars, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years, or be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year; and when the value of the property so bought, received, or concealed by him does not exceed the sum of twenty dollars, be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding thirty days.” Code, § 4845.

It is the rule of this court that the thief is not an accomplice with the person who receives the stolen property. State v. Hayden, 45 Iowa, 11;State v. Jones, 115 Iowa, 113, 88 N. W. 196;State v. Scott, 136 Iowa, 152, 113 N. W. 758. And such is the holding of other courts. State v. Kulhman, 152 Mo. 100, 53 S. W. 416, 75 Am. St. Rep. 438. The statute makes the value of the goods a material inquiry. As bearing upon this issue, the owner of the property testified, without objection, as follows: “I can't say for sure, but I would feel safe in saying there was somewhere between 20 and 25 furs. The furs ranged in price. Q. What was the value of these furs that were gone? A. Well, I think very close to the neighborhood of $250. The furs...