State v. Kelso
| Decision Date | 19 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 36368.,36368. |
| Citation | 200 N.W. 695,198 Iowa 1046 |
| Parties | STATE v. KELSO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; W. G. Bonner, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery with a deadly weapon, and appeals. Affirmed.C. H. Miller, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., S. S. Faville, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Vernon R. Seeburger, Co. Atty., of Des Moines, for the State.
The appellant presents but two propositions for our consideration: (1) That his defense of alibi was successfully established by the evidence, and he was therefore entitled to an acquittal; (2) that the court erred in admitting in evidence a written confession made by the defendant.
As to the first proposition: The question was one for the determination of the jury and the verdict determined it against the appellant. A brief statement of the testimony will indicate that the situation in this respect is by no means such as to require our interference. The crime for which the appellant was convicted was the robbery of one Amack, the person in charge of a filling station situated at East Thirtieth and Dean streets in the city of Des Moines. At about 8:20 p. m. of Saturday, January 12, 1924, two men drove up to the filling station in a Hudson sedan, and one of them, at the point of a revolver, compelled Amack to give him the cash on hand. This man was masked, but was recognized by Amack as Harold Hite. The other man was driving the car. Shortly thereafter the police gave chase to a Hudson sedan that was seen going west at Fifteenth and Maury streets. Maury street is parallel with Dean street and six blocks south of it. The Hudson car ran into a tree. Hite was seen getting out of the car and was captured. Another man was seen running away, and escaped. The appellant was arrested about 3 a. m. the same night at the house of his brother at 700 West Second street, in company with his divorced wife Rose, whose maiden name was Smith.
The appellant claimed to have met his former wife at 8:30 p. m., and to have been with her at her room and at his brother's house until his arrest. In this she corroborated him. He was also corroborated as to a part of the time by his sister, his brother, mother, and father. The general locality where they claim to have seen him is some two or three miles from the scene of the robbery.
[1] Testimony was introduced by the state in rebuttal from which the jury could have found that about 9 p. m. of the night in question the appellant was at a grocery store on Scott street, a point much nearer the scene of the robbery and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial