State v. Hessian

• Decision Date: 18 April 1882
• Citation: 12 N.W. 77,58 Iowa 68
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. HESSIAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

58 Iowa 68

12 N.W. 77

STATE OF IOWA

v.HESSIAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 18, 1882.

Appeal from Kossuth district court.

The defendant was indicted for the larceny of 10 calves. He was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for six months, and appeals to this court.Albert E. Clark and George E. Clark, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., and J. M. Tolliver, for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The stolen property is alleged to have been of the value of $60. In the third instruction given by the court to the jury, wherein the court states the material facts necessary to constitute the crime, the jury are directed that they must find from the evidence “that the defendant stole the calves described in the indictment, or some of them, or aided and assisted others in stealing them.” This instruction is complained of because the defendant might have stolen some of the calves and not have been guilty of the offence charged, but only of larceny of property not exceeding $20 in value. We think the instruction is correct. The state was not required to prove that the defendant stole all the calves in order to warrant a verdict of guilty under the indictment. If the value of the stolen property did not exceed $20, the defendant might, nevertheless, be found guilty of larceny under the indictment. The value of the property merely fixes the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender. The court instructed the jury that they must find the value of the property which was stolen. This was done, and the value was found to be $50.

2. The indictment is in the ordinary form, and an objection is made to an instruction of the court to the jury to the effect that the defendant was guilty if he aided or abetted others in the commission of the crime. It is claimed that the indictment should set out the facts that the defendant aided or abetted the crime, and that it is not sufficient to charge him as a principal. Section 4314 of the Code is in these words: “The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal is abrogated, and all persons concerned in the commission of a public offence, whether they directly committhe act constituting it, or aid and abet its commission, though not present, must hereafter be indicted, tried, and punished as principals.” If those who aid and abet the commission of a crime are required to be indicted as principals, the indictment must be the same as though they were principals. Indeed, as we understand it, the indictment in this case is in the usual form adopted in all cases since the distinction between principal and accessory was abolished by section 2928 of the Code of 1851.

3. It is further urged that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the difference in the grades of the offence of larceny. This is not required. The jury were instructed to find the value of the property....