State v. Lawson
| Decision Date | 23 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 35444 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. ALBERT LAWSON et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Warren District Court.--LORIN N. HAYS, Judge.
ALBERT Lawson, Fred Beeson, and Harry Grimm were jointly indicted. The indictment charges the crime of larceny from a building in the nighttime. Lawson and Beeson entered pleas of "not guilty," and demanded trial separate from defendant Harry Grimm. Lawson and Beeson only were tried in this case. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the crime charged, and fixed the value of the property stolen at $ 400. Judgment was entered on the verdict, sentencing each of the defendants to the penitentiary at Fort Madison for a period of not to exceed ten years. Defendants appeal.--Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
J. O Watson, for appellants.
W. M Wilson, County Attorney, and Ben J. Gibson, Attorney-general for appellee.
I.
No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and it is unnecessary to set forth the evidence and facts claimed to have been proved. The assignments of error relied upon for reversal are lodged at certain instructions given by the court, consideration of which assignments follows.
II. The indictment charges the crime of larceny from a building in the nighttime. In Paragraph 4 of the instructions, the court defined larceny. The definition in this instruction does not deal with the phrase "in a building in the nighttime," contained in the indictment, and appellants assign as error such omission. Appellants complain of the instruction because it defines larceny only, and tells the jury that such is the crime for which defendants are indicted, and fails to tell the jury that defendants are indicted and placed on trial for an aggravated form of larceny, to wit, "larceny in a building in the nighttime," and because in said instructions were stated the elements of the crime of larceny only, and they did not give the elements of the offense for which defendants were indicted.
Code Section 4831 defines larceny. Code Section 4832 does not reiterate the definition of larceny given in Section 4831, but states that:
"If any person in the nighttime commit larceny in any dwelling house, store, or any public or private building, * * * when the value of the property stolen exceeds the sum of twenty dollars, he shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding ten years."
Section 4831, after defining larceny, provides that, when the value of the property stolen exceeds $ 20, the punishment shall be imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than five years. The crime charged in both Sections 4831 and 4832 is larceny. The facts of the time and place of the commission of the offense affect only the degree of punishment which shall be imposed. State v. Elsham, 70 Iowa 531, 31 N.W. 66; State v. Carter, 144 Iowa 280, 121 N.W. 694.
The indictment was set out in the instructions. We think there could be no misunderstanding on the part of the jury as to the fact that the defendants were on trial for the crime of larceny in a building in the nighttime. It was not necessary to inform the jury what is meant by the phrase "in a building in the nighttime." It was not necessary for the court to give definition or explanation to the jury of terms employed in an indictment which are stated in ordinary language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of ordinary understanding to know what is charged. State v. Bresee, 137 Iowa 673, 114 N.W. 45. If definition or explanation further than given in said Instruction 4 were required, we think it adequately appears in Instructions 5 and 6. All of the instructions must be construed together in determining the correctness of one of them. State v. Hall, 168 Iowa 221, 150 N.W. 97; State v. Cooper, 169 Iowa 571, 151 N.W. 835.
In Instruction 5, the court told the jury:
"If you believe from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime of larceny was committed by the stealing of the automobile tires described in the indictment, or some part of them, and belonging to M. A. Art, and contained in his garage at Hartford, Warren County, Iowa, at the time and in the manner substantially as charged in the indictment, and you further find beyond a reasonable doubt and under these instructions that the defendants Albert Lawson and Fred Beeson committed the crime, substantially as charged in the indictment, then, in such case, you should convict said defendants of the crime as charged in the indictment."
In Paragraph 6, the court used this language:
"In determining whether or not the defendants are guilty of the crime as charged in the indictment, it will be proper for you to take into consideration the place from which the property in question was taken, if the property was so taken; the time when the property was taken, whether in the daytime or at night," etc.
In fact, the court required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of larceny was committed from a building,--the certain garage mentioned in the indictment,-- in the nighttime. We find no error at this point.
III. Appellants complain of Instructions Nos. 6 and 11.
In Instruction 6, the court enumerated matters for the jury to take into consideration in determining whether or not the defendants were guilty of the crime charged in the indictment, and among them mentioned ...
To continue reading
Request your trial