State v. Haywood

• Decision Date: 05 June 1912
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. WILLIAM HAYWOOD, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

136 N.W. 514

155 Iowa 466

STATE OF IOWA v. WILLIAM HAYWOOD, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 5, 1912

Appeal from Wapello District Court.--HON. C. W. VERMILLION, Judge.

DEFENDANT was convicted of larceny from a dwelling house in the nighttime, and appeals.

Affirmed.

W. W Epps for appellant.

George Cosson, Attorney General, and John Fletcher, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

The defendant was charged with having stolen one hundred and sixty dollars from Mrs. Mary Jordan, a resident of the city of Ottumwa. Mrs. Jordan was a widow, and at the time the crime was committed her household consisted of her son, a young man about nineteen years of age, and the defendant, who had been making his home at her place for about five years. The arrangement, under which the defendant remained at the Jordan home, was that he should furnish a part of the household necessities and have a room and his board. The defendant's principal business was the buying and selling of junk; and when not thus engaged he assisted Mrs. Jordan and her son in taking care of stock on the small premises occupied by her and in caring for the garden. On the night that the crime was committed, Mrs. Jordan had the money in question in a pocketbook, which was in the pocket of her coat, and this coat was in her bedroom when she retired at about ten o'clock. Mrs. Jordan and her son occupied separate beds in the same room, and at the time in question the son had already gone to bed. The defendant's room adjoined the room occupied by Mrs. Jordan and her son, and there was a doorway between the two rooms, over which a curtain was dropped when the rooms were in use; there being no door. The defendant was at home that night, but did not go to bed. About an hour after Mrs. Jordan had retired, he took her pocketbook and the money it contained, and left the house, going to the railroad depot, where he later took a train and went to Lincoln, Neb. A few days thereafter, he was arrested at the home of his daughter in Lincoln, and the money which he had taken was found in his possession.

But two propositions are presented by the defendant for our consideration. His first contention is that there should have been an instruction on the offense of simple larceny, because it is included in the crime charged in the indictment. This contention on the part of the defendant can not be sustained for, while it...