State v. Rowland

• Citation: 33 N.W. 137,72 Iowa 327
• Parties: STATE v. ROWLAND.
• Decision Date: 09 June 1887
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

72 Iowa 327

33 N.W. 137

STATE

v.ROWLAND.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 9, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Clarke county.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of grand larceny, and now appeals to this court.M. L. Temple, for appellant.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BECK, J.

1. The indictment charges the defendant with stealing four head of cattle. It is insisted that the evidence fails to connect him with the larceny which is clearly established. But, in our opinion, the most that can be said upon this point is that it is a case of conflict of evidence. The defendant was identified by several witnesses as the person, or one of the persons, seen driving cattle on the road to the butchers to whom the stolen cattle were sold. That the cattle sold to the butcher were stolen cannot be doubted. An accomplice in the crime testified to defendant's guilt, and his evidence is corroborated by other testimony. The defendant attempted to establish an alibi, but the evidence bearing upon this point was also conflicting. We think there is no ground to hold that the verdict is not the expression of the conclusion of the jury reached in the honest and intelligent exercise of their discretion.

2. The defendant petitioned for a change of venue on the ground of prejudice and excitement against him in the county, and supported his petition by affidavits of himself and three others. The state filed contradictory affidavits. The record does not show that the district court failed rightly to exercise the lawful discretion with which it is clothed in applications of this kind. We cannot say, upon consideration of the record before us, that justice required the venue of the case to be changed.

3. The district court instructed the jury that the alibi relied upon by defendant, in order to authorize a verdict of acquittal, must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. While counsel for defendant complains of the instructions, he does not deny that the rule it announces is the recognized doctrine of this court. See State v. Hamilton, 57 Iowa, 596, 11 N. W. Rep. 5;State v. Reed, 62 Iowa, 40, 17 N. W. Rep. 150.

4. Another instruction directed the jury that they should scan the testimony introduced by the defendant to establish the alibi with care and caution, as it is recognized under the law as a defense easily manufactured. An instruction in substantially the same language was approved by this court in State v. Blunt, 59 Iowa, 468, 13 N. W....