State v. Fox
| Decision Date | 27 May 1890 |
| Citation | 45 N.W. 874,80 Iowa 312 |
| Parties | STATE v. FOX. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Kossuth county; GEORGE H. CARR, Judge.
Defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of burglary, and now appeals to this court.H. S. Vaughn, for appellant.
J. Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The indictment charges that defendant did feloniously and burglariously break and enter a dwelling-house, “with intent there and then to take, steal, and carry away the property of George W. Flock, and then and there to commit a public offense, to-wit, larceny, and with intent then and there to commit adultery with one Hattie Price, contrary to statute,” etc.
2. Counsel first insist that the indictment, in alleging that the house entered in the commission of the offense is a dwelling-house belonging to George W. Flock, does not show the ownership thereof. He maintains that the word “belonging” does not express the idea of property. The position is incorrect. The primary meaning of the word “to belong” is “to be the property of.” The word is aptly used to express ownership.
3. It is claimed that the indictment is bad for that it charges the entering was done with two purposes,--an intent to steal, and an intent to commit adultery. The intent does not constitute the crime, but it is an essential ingredient thereof. The crime consists in entering with an intent to commit a crime. It is plain that, if an intent exist to commit two or more offenses, the act is none the less a crime, and it may be established by proof of one or all the intents alleged. 3 Greenl. Ev. § 16. The rulings of the court complained of on this ground are correct.
4. An instruction--the tenth--is in the following language: This instruction is a ground of complaint by defendant. It is in accord with legal principles, reason, and decisions of this court. Men's purposes are only revealed by their acts. One who breaks into the dwelling-house of another in the night-time, in the absence of any explanation of the act, will be presumed to have intended to commit a public offense. His silence as to his intent is evidence that it was to commit a crime. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Melton
...(1958); State v. Gatewood, 169 Kan. 679, 221 P.2d 392 (1950); State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa, 236, 225 N.W. 254 (1929)22; State v. Fox, 80 Iowa 312, 45 N.W. 874 (1890); State v. Maxwell, 42 Iowa 208 (1875). And where there is additional evidence tending to show intent to steal, as there is her......
-
State v. Woodruff
...Worthen, 111 Iowa, 267, 82 N. W. 910;State v. Maxwell, 42 Iowa, 208;State v. Teeter, 69 Iowa, 717, 27 N. W. 485;State v. Fox, 80 Iowa, 312, 45 N. W. 874, 20 Am. St. Rep. 425;State v. Mecum, 95 Iowa, 433, 64 N. W. 286;People v. Soto, 53 Cal. 415;Moseley v. State, 92 Miss. 250, 45 So. 833;Woo......
-
Moseley v. State
...when the entry was made at night and under such circumstances as to preclude the commission of any other crime. In the case of State v. Fox, 82 Iowa 312, in discussing propriety of the following instruction, "if you find that in the nighttime the defendant broke and entered the dwelling hou......
-
State v. Woodruff
...hinged on flimsy evidence, and the court in no way overruled State v. Worthen, supra; State v. Maxwell, supra; State v. Teeter, supra; State v. Fox, supra; v. Mecum, supra. The most that can be said of the Cook case is that we refused to apply the general rule in cases of attempt to break a......