State v. Lucas
| Decision Date | 17 December 1881 |
| Citation | 57 Iowa 501,10 N.W. 868 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. LUCAS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Allamakee district court.
The defendant was indicted jointly with Charles Wood and James White for a robbery from the person of R. G. Edwards, perpetrated by assaulting him with deadly weapons. The defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary. He appeals. The case was before us on a former appeal. See 7 N. W. REP. 583.L. Bullis, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. It is insisted that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. R. G. Edwards, in substance, testified that he was watchman for Hemmingway, Barclay & Co., who were running a steam saw-mill, and had a safe in a little brick office not far from the mill; that about 3 o'clock on the morning of August 4, 1879, while he was out examining the logs and looking to see that all was right, two men, one armed with a club and the other with a revolver, assaulted him; that the one armed with a revolver, whom he supposed to be Lucas, the defendant, held the revolver to his face and ordered him to lie down, while the other, whom he identified as Wood, and who is referred to in the evidence as “the kid,” hit him with a club about three feet long; that he reeled, and when he came to Wood was on his breast, and there was a noise around his feet, and the other man was standing back of him; that they said they didn't want to hurt him if he would only submit; that they were going for the safe; that one of them said to the other, “Now, let's go for the safe,” and that while the other man went for a sledge Wood rifled his pockets and took three dollars, all the money he had. The witness further testified that the man who went for a sledge came back and stood over him, “and he asked me if I had any money, and he asked if the kid had taken it all, and I said he had, and he asked if three dollars was all, and I told him yes.” The witness testifies that he can't positively identify the man who presented the revolver, though he is satisfied in his own mind who it was. The witness had a lantern, the light of which he threw upon the men; but they had handkerchiefs tied around their faces. He testified to certain appearances of the eyebrows and a peculiar shrugging of the shoulders, by which he thinks he recognizes the defendant. Upon the other hand, the witnesses for the defendant testify that the defendant has no peculiar habit of shrugging the shoulders. The whole testimony of the witness amounts simply to this: that the witness is satisfied in his own mind that defendant is one of the parties who assaulted him, although he cannot state positively that such is the fact. Positive certainty is scarcely ever attainable except as to mathematical truths. There is no rule of law which requires that a witness shall be positively certain of a fact. The liability to error and mistake is so great in all human operations that a suspicion generally arises as to the honesty of a witness who will not admit the possibility of his being mistaken. We do not feel warranted in holding that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the defendant was present at the transaction referred to by the witness.
2. It is claimed, however, that conceding the defendant to have been present at the time referred to by the witness, still the evidence does not connect the defendant with the robbery in question, but shows that it was perpetrated by Wood while the defendant was after the sledge, and that the only offence contemplated by the defendant was the robbery of the safe. From the fact, however, that the defendant returned and asked the witness if he had any money, and if the kid had taken it all, and if three dollars was all, the jury might well find that the purpose of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial