State v. Reader

• Decision Date: 03 April 1883
• Citation: State v. Reader, 60 Iowa 527, 15 N.W. 423 (Iowa 1883)
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. READER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

60 Iowa 527

15 N.W. 423

STATE OF IOWA

v.READER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 3, 1883.

Appeal from Hardin district court.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of arson.Judgment having been rendered upon the verdict, he appeals to this court.T. H. Milner, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ADAMS, J.

The property which the defendant was charged with burning was a jail or calaboose, in the incorporated town of Iowa Falls.The evidence is undisputed that the building in question was burned in the night-time, near morning, on or about the first day of September, 1881.The defendant at the time was residing upon a farm with one Pierce, about three or four miles from the town.During the night of the fire, however, he stayed in town.He had previously been confined in this jail and made threats of burning it.On the evening previous to the fire, about 10 or 11 o'clock, according to the testimony of one witness, he was seen by him to wrench off the lock from the door of the jail and enter it.The same witness testified that he heard the defendant state afterwards that he burned the jail, and did so by setting fire to a bedtick.Other witnesses also testified to hearing him state that he burned the jail.

1.The defendant contends that the witness who testified to seeing him enter the jail the evening previous to the fire was shown to be an accomplice, and that being such the court should have instructed the jury in regard to the necessity of his being corroborated, to justify them in finding a verdict of guilty.The evidence relied upon as showing that the defendant was an accomplice is the testimony of the witness himself.He testified in substance that the defendant invited him to go down and see him upset the jail; that he did go down and saw him enter as before described, he remaining in the mean time outside, about a rod from the door.But there is no evidence that he gave any assistance or advice, or supposed that the jail had been set on fire when he left it.We cannot say, then, that there was any evidence that he was an accomplice.Besides, we think the witness was abundantly corroborated by the testimony of those who heard him say that he set the jail on fire.It is true that at one time when he was heard to say this he was supposed to be in jest, but it is not shown that he was so supposed at other times.

2.The defendant contends that his confessions, as shown by the evidence, were all made out...