State v. Shaffer
| Decision Date | 20 September 1882 |
| Citation | 13 N.W. 306,59 Iowa 290 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHAFFER |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Henry District Court.
THE indictment in this case charges that the defendant broke and entered the barn of J. M. Holland in which barn goods and merchandise and other things of value were kept for use, sale and deposit, with felonious intent to take, steal, and carry away the goods, merchandise, and other valuable things; and twenty bushels of wheat of the value of $ 14, six sacks of the value of $ 2, and one bridle of the value of $ 1.50 of the goods of J. M. Holland did feloniously take, steal, and carry away, etc. There was a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, from which the defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
L. G. & L. A Palmer, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, for the State.
I.
The defendant after verdict moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment is insufficient and void. The motion was overruled and the defendant assigns the action of the court in overruling the same as error. He insists that the indictment is bad for duplicity in that it charges a felonious breaking with intent to commit larceny, and also the commission of larceny. In State v. Hayden, 45 Iowa 11, an indictment which was in substance the same as that in this case was sustained. It was held that the charge of stealing might be regarded as a mere pleading of evidence or surplusage which might have been properly introduced in support of the charge of an intent to steal. That case was tried upon that theory in the District Court, and the jury were instructed that the defendant was on trial for breaking and entering the building with intent to steal, and he was found guilty of that offense. The same may be said of the case at bar. The court instructed the jury that "the charge in the indictment that the defendant stole goods is for the purpose of charging the public offense he intended to commit and the larceny, if any, may be shown and considered for the purpose of showing the intent of the defendant in breaking and entering said building." This case is, then, in strict accord with the rule laid down in Hayden's case. Afterwards in The State v. Ridley and Johnson, 48 Iowa 370, in an indictment substantially the same as in Hayden's case, and the case at bar, the court instructed the jury that three crimes were charged in the indictment:
"1st Larceny in a store in the night time; 2d, breaking and entering a store with intent to steal; and 3d, simple larceny."
The defendant was found guilty of larceny from a store in the night time. It was urged in that case that the conviction was proper under the indictment, because the claim charged was a compound offense, and that under section 4300 of the Code the several offenses included in the compound offense could properly be charged in the same indictment. We there held that burglary and larceny were...
To continue reading
Request your trial