State v. Miner

• Decision Date: 05 April 1899
• Citation: 78 N.W. 679,107 Iowa 656
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. W. MINER, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

78 N.W. 679

107 Iowa 656

STATE OF IOWA v. W. MINER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 5, 1899

Appeal from Harrison District Court.--HON. F. R. GAYNOR, Judge.

DEFENDANT was indicted for the larceny of three heifers. There was a jury trial, with the result that defendant was found guilty. From the judgment rendered on the verdict he appeals.

Reversed.

F. M Dance for appellant.

Milton Remley, Attorney General, and W. H. Redmond for the State.

OPINION

WATERMAN, J.

Defendant applied for a change of venue on the ground of the prejudice of the inhabitants of Harrison county. This application was supported by affidavits. The state made a counter showing and the application was overruled. This action of the trial court is complained of. We have quite often said that we will not interfere with the discretion vested in the trial court in passing upon such an application, unless it appears to have been abused. State v. Edgerton, 100 Iowa 63, 69 N.W. 280, and cases cited. The ruling of the court in this case seems to have sufficient support.

II. It is thought that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. We are not disposed to interfere on this ground. The principal matter discussed by counsel is as to the identity of the property in question. This was a matter for the jury. Its finding cannot be said to be without support.

III. Complaint is made of the following instruction: "You are instructed that if the state have satisfied you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in this county and state, on or about the fifteenth day of July, 1896, that A. P. Falk was the owner of, and had in his possession, the property charged in the indictment to have been stolen by the defendant, and that some one, on or about said time, or a short time prior thereto, feloniously took, stole, and carried the same away from the possession of the said A. P Falk, and did this without the knowledge and consent of the said A. P. Falk, or those having the possession or control of the same for the said A. P. Falk, and with the intent then and there to convert the same to the use of the taker, against the will of the said A. P. Falk; and the state has further satisfied you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that soon after the felonious taking aforesaid the identical property so taken from the possession of the said A. P. Falk was found in the possession of this defendant,--then this would be presumptive evidence against the defendant that he was the party so taking the property, and it will be presumptive evidence of his guilt of the charge made...