State v. Latham
Decision Date | 13 November 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 50590,50590 |
Citation | 117 N.W.2d 840,254 Iowa 513 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Howard LATHAM, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Law offices of Lex Hawkins, by Lawrence F. Scalise, Des Moines, for defendant-appellant.
Evan Hultman, Atty. Gen., John Allen, Roland D. Peddicord, Asst. Atty Gen., Harry Perkins, Polk County Atty., and James D. McKeon, Asst. Polk County Atty., for appellee.
By indictment defendant was charged with the offense of breaking and entering as defined in Section 708.8 Code of Iowa, I.C.A. Upon his plea of not guilty he was tried and found guilty by a jury. The trial court overruled defendant's motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and sentenced defendant to the penitentiary.
For reversal defendant claims lack of corroboration of alleged accomplices and prejudicial error committed by the prosecutor in final argument.
They were arrested on the afternoon of July 11th, admitted the offense and implicated defendant. At the trial they testified for the state and against defendant.
At the trial there was testimony by arresting officers that in defendant's presence the women identified defendant as the one who had helped them steal the rugs.
There was testimony that defendant admitted he was at the scene of the crime and had carried the rugs from the premises and was with the women when the crime was planned.
In his own behalf defendant testified that he picked up the smaller rug from the parking in back of the premises, carried it to his car and took it to Mrs. Freeman's house; changed his clothes and went back to the burgled premises and got the other rug and took it in his car to Mrs. Hill's house.
Mrs. Freeman and Mrs. Hill were accomplices. Corroboration of their testimony was necessary. 'Whether there was some evidence of this character was for the court to decide; its sufficiency was for the jury.' State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 621, 177 N.W. 563, 568; State v. Fletcher, 246 Iowa 452, 459, 68 N.W.2d 99; State v. Gates, 246 Iowa 344, 351, 67 N.W.2d 579.
In State v. Cotton, 240 Iowa 609, 641, 33 N.W.2d 880, 898, it is said:
(Citations) See also State v. Gates, supra.
The defendant may himself furnish the corroboration required. State v. Bosch, 172 Iowa 88, 92, 153 N.W. 73, 75. Page 93 State v. Bosch, supra.
In State v. Clay, 222 Iowa 1142, 1146, 271 N.W. 212, 215, it is said 'If the testimony of an accomplice is corroborated by other witnesses in any material point tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, it is sufficient.' (Citations) (Citations)
In the instant case the arresting officers testified that defendant admitted helping the women haul the rugs from the burgled premises and that he was with the women when the plan of stealing was discussed. As a witness in his own behalf defendant admitted carrying the rugs from the premises to his car and hauling them away. There was ample corroboration to generate a jury question.
The jury was fully instructed on the requirements for corroboration. The testimony of the accomplices, together with the corroborating testimony, was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.
The court did not err in overruling the several motions of defendant urging lack of corroboration.
III. In argument to the jury, counsel for the State in commenting on the necessity for corroboration said, Objection was made and the court said, Later in the same argument counsel for the State referred to one of the alleged accomplices as defendant's paramour or mistress. Objections were made.
The Court commented that counsel was making an inference with which the jury might agree or disagree 'it is up to them.'
IV. Mrs. Hill testified that she was defendant's 'girl friend'. There was evidence that defendant had been to her house on many occasions in the past. He furnished his car and was very solicitous in the late evening activities of his girl friend. Hauling rugs from strange premises at 1 a. m. for a girl friend might...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Stump
...defendant is not before us the argument for the State is presumed to be in response thereto. If responsive it was not error. State v. Latham, Iowa, 117 N.W.2d 840. See also State v. Thompson, Iowa, 117 N.W.2d 514, 519, In State v. Case, 247 Iowa 1019, 1029, 1030, 75 N.W.2d 233, 240, it is s......
-
State v. Whitfield
...where otherwise prejudicial remarks can be presumed fair rebuttal to remarks of defense counsel. See, e.g., State v. Latham, 254 Iowa 513, 517, 117 N.W.2d 840, 843 (1962) ('Where the argument for the defense is not before us the argument for the State is presumed to be in response thereto. ......
-
State v. Swartz, 98-252.
...to an argument advanced by defense counsel. State v. Stump, 254 Iowa 1181, 1196, 119 N.W.2d 210, 219 (1963); State v. Latham, 254 Iowa 513, 517, 117 N.W.2d 840, 843 (1962); State v. Rutledge, 243 Iowa 179, 199, 47 N.W.2d 251, 263 The defendant's closing argument was not reported. Consequent......
-
State v. Williams, 54089
...writings or other documentary evidence. State v. Fletcher, 246 Iowa 452, 458--460, 68 N.W.2d 99, 102--103; State v. Latham, 254 Iowa 513, 515--516, 117 N.W.2d 840, 842. Of course, tacit admissions by an accused may not be relied on in this connection. See State v. Kelsey, 201 N.W.2d 921, 92......