State v. Ireland
| Decision Date | 15 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 33654 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. R. M. IRELAND, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--GEORGE A. WILSON, Judge.
DEFENDANT appeals from a conviction in the court below of the crime of larceny. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.
Reversed.
Fred A Utterback and John McLennan, for appellant.
Ben J Gibson, Attorney-General, John Fletcher and B. J. Flick Assistant Attorney-Generals, for appellee.
The defendant was tried upon an indictment charging him with the larceny of a Ford automobile. The defendant, in addition to testifying in his own behalf, offered evidence of an alibi. The automobile was stolen from Riverview Park, in the city of Des Moines, where it had been parked by C. A. Arnold, the owner, about 10 o'clock P. M., July 26, 1919. The defendant and a soldier by the name of Robinson were arrested at a rooming house at 319 Ninth Street, in the city of Des Moines, about 12 o'clock on the same evening, upon the charge of having stolen the car. William Carpenter and a party by the name of McElhaney, both of whom were engaged in the restaurant business in Des Moines, went to the rooming house, some time after the car was stolen, and before the arrest of defendant and Robinson, and there met them. The defendant was intoxicated. He asked Carpenter to go to the Royal Hotel, situated at Seventh and Mulberry Streets, and get $ 25 that he had on deposit there, and at the same time said to Carpenter, "You can drive my car down." Carpenter and McElhaney went in the car to the Royal Hotel, and, while Carpenter went into the hotel to get the money for the defendant, McElhaney waited for him in front of the hotel. Courtright, a police officer, who had a description of the car, came along, and, after some conversation with McElhaney and Carpenter, went with them to the rooming house, where they found the defendant and Robinson and Dickerson, who was proprietor of the house. After Carpenter gave the defendant the money, Courtright inquired whose car it was. To this inquiry, the defendant replied that it was his; that he bought it from Herring; and that he had a bill of sale therefor. Courtright thereupon arrested the defendant, and started with him to the police station. When they reached the sidewalk in front of the house, the defendant voluntarily told Courtright that the car did not belong to him; that it belonged to the soldier upstairs,--that is, Robinson. Courtright re-entered the rooming house, arrested Robinson, and took him and the defendant to the police station. The arrest was made about midnight.
The above is all of the testimony introduced by the State. Robinson was indicted and convicted of the larceny of the car.
The defendant, called as a witness in his own behalf, testified, in substance, that he had lived at the Royal Hotel for about three months; that, on the evening in question, he remained in his room until about 8 o'clock; that, between 8 and 8:20, he gave his wife $ 10, to pay on a dress; that she then went to the mercantile establishment of Askin & Marine, and returned to the hotel at about 8:30 or a quarter to 9, and told the defendant that she was to have the dress at 10 o'clock; that they then went to the Empress Theater, but that, when he was in the act of buying tickets, the defendant's wife said that the theater would not be out in time for her to get her dress; that they then changed their plans, and walked about the streets, going first to the Union Station, to ascertain the fare to New York City,--the defendant's wife contemplating a trip to that place, to visit a member of the family who was ill; that from there they went to a fruit store and temp bar kept by Tony Morasco on the corner of Seventh and Mulberry Streets; that they arrived at the fruit store about 10 o'clock; that the clock struck 10 while they were at the store, where they remained about 15 minutes, and then went to the hotel, where the defendant sat in a chair for a few minutes, when Robinson, who was sitting in the Ford automobile near by, called to him; that he went to the automobile, and was invited by Robinson to take a ride; that he got in the car, and was driven by Robinson to a place on Ninth Street, for the purpose of getting some liquor. He then testified to the transaction with Carpenter and McElhaney, and to his arrest by Courtright. His wife, the proprietor of the fruit store and temp bar, and other witnesses corroborated the statements of the defendant as to his whereabouts during the evening. Except for such inferences as may be drawn therefrom, the testimony is practically undisputed. No direct testimony was introduced by the State to disprove the defendant's claim as to his whereabouts during the evening. It will thus be seen that the conviction was based upon testimony that the defendant and Robinson were together at the rooming house shortly after the crime was committed, and at the time of the arrest, and upon the statements made by him to the parties named, as to the ownership of the car.
The defendant and Robinson became acquainted with each other at Camp Dodge, some time before the incidents narrated.
The propositions relied upon by appellant for reversal are that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, and that error was committed by the court in Instructions 6 and 11 of the court's charge to the jury.
We will first dispose of the alleged errors in the instructions. Instruction No. 6 relates to the effect to be given to evidence of the possession of recently stolen property, and Instruction 11, to the defense of alibi. Neither of these instructions is so framed as to fully meet the requirements of the facts of this particular case. One of the complaints lodged against Instruction 6 is that it assumes that the defendant was found, on the evening of the larceny, in the possession of the stolen property. No other instruction touching the subject of possession was given, nor was any requested. The State offered no other direct evidence for the purpose of proving that the defendant was in possession of the stolen property, except his declarations of ownership thereof. Clearly, he was not shown to have been at any time in the actual possession of the automobile. Assuming the truth of his claim, that he rode with Robinson in the stolen car from the Royal Hotel to the rooming house, where he was arrested, this alone would not prove that he was in possession of the car. State v. Keller, 191 Iowa 740, 183 N.W. 307.
Robinson was present...
To continue reading
Request your trial