State v. Hanley
| Decision Date | 05 March 1907 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. THOMAS HANLEY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monroe District Court.-- HON. M. A. ROBERTS, Judge.
THE indictment accused the defendant of the crime of having in his possession burglar's tools with intent to commit the crime of burglary. On the trial he was convicted, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
N.E Kendall, for appellant.
H. W Byers, Attorney-General, and C. W. Lyon, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
The defendant came to Albia, in Monroe county, on the evening of November 14, 1905, and put up at the Transient House. He was assigned to room No. 9, which he occupied during the night and after breakfast next morning went out into the city. There was evidence tending to show that when he came to the hotel he wore a cravenette overcoat, and that when he went out in the morning he did not take it with him; that, as he went away, he said to a man with him that his overcoat was upstairs, and he did not need it. The landlady of the hotel testified that she went into his room in the morning to do the chamber work, and that as she opened the door a cravenette overcoat which having been left hanging on the wall had fallen down to the floor. She says that she picked it up, and as she did so discovered a pair of dirty socks lying under it on the floor. She picked up the socks, and finding them heavy looked into them and discovered a bunch of skeleton keys, a dark lantern, some fuse and dynamite caps. She also discovered two revolvers in the pockets of the coat. In the afternoon the defendant came back to the hotel, and was there arrested.
I. On being arrested, defendant disavowed any knowledge of the coat, and of the other property found in his room. On the trial he sought to show by one Miller that a stranger by the name of Hoffman, who was a guest at the hotel on the day of the arrest, approached him, said Miller, and offered to sell a cravenette coat similar in appearance to that found in room 9. Two other witnesses were called for the same purpose. The evidence was objected to by the State, and was ruled out. In this there was no error. True, defendant denied having any overcoat, but the one in question was found in a room occupied solely by himself. As far as appears, he and Hoffman were strangers to each other, and there was no evidence tending to show that the coat in question was ever in the possession of the latter. The mere fact that sundry persons were approached by Hoffman at some other place with an offer to sell a cravenette coat would not tend even remotely to prove that defendant had no connection with the coat and property found in his room.
II. Complaint is made of the ninth instruction. Therein the jury were told that if the tools, etc., were found in defendant's possession, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial