State v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 12 December 1885 |
| Citation | 67 Iowa 557,25 N.W. 777 |
| Parties | STATE v. STEVENS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Hardin district court.
Defendant was convicted of burglary, and now appeals to this court.Tom H. Milner, for appellant, William Stevens.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The defendant was indicted, with two others, for burglary committed by breaking into a jewelry store and taking goods and money of the aggregate value of $678. Upon his request he was tried separate from his co-defendants.
2. Various objections were made to testimony on the trial, showing acts and conversation of the other persons indicted with defendant, which tended to establish familiar relations and association of all the parties; that they were in company about the time of the commission of the crime, and other matters tending to connect defendant therewith. Evidence as to certain bonds found in possession of the defendants was also made the subject of objection. All of these objections may be disposed of upon the consideration that the evidence tends to connect defendant with the crime, the commission of which was clearly established. It tends to show that defendant, and those connected with him, were familiar associates and confederates for the commission of crime.
3. Evidence was admitted, against defendant's objection, tending to show an attempt or effort on the part of defendant to escape from custody. It is admitted by counsel for defendant that an escape and flight may be shown as a fact tending to establish guilt; but it is insisted that an attempt to escape cannot be proved. We discover no distinction between an actual escape and an attempt to escape. Each equally tends to show a consciousness of guilt, and is therefore alike admissible against the accused.
4. Certain instructions as to the effect of evidence of possession of property recently stolen are made the subject of criticism. They present the familiar rules upon this subject in language sufficiently clear and certain. The same remark may be made applicable to instructions applying the action of reasonable doubt to different branches of the case. Counsel, in their objections to these instructions, fail to recognize the obvious meaning of their language. The instructions present rules as they are laid down and recognized in decisions of the courts.
5. The defendant did not testify in his own behalf. His counsel now urge that the court erred in not instructing the jury that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pope
...a judgment pronounced at a term continued over the time fixed by law for another term in the same district was not erroneous. State v. Stevens (Iowa) 25 N. W. 777; State v. Peterson (Iowa) 25 N. W. 780. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied the doctrine of the two earlier Iowa cases, supra,......
-
State v. Pope
... ... are State v. Clark, 30 Iowa 168, and Cook v ... Smith, 54 Iowa 636, 6 N.W. 259. It was held that a ... judgment pronounced at a term continued over the time fixed ... by law for another term in the same district was not ... erroneous. [110 Mo.App. 537] [ State v. Stevens, 25 ... N.W. 777; State v. Peterson, 25 N.W. 780.] The ... Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied the doctrine of the two ... earlier Iowa cases, supra, and decided that holding a court ... during a time designated by law for holding another court in ... the same judicial district did not ... ...
-
State v. Myers
... ... There ... are, however, some cases that sustain respondent's ... contention, and are decided squarely upon the question at ... issue, but they do not seem to us to be well-considered ... cases, or to be based upon sound reasoning. In State v ... Stevens, 67 Iowa, 557, 25 N.W. 777, the court says: ... "The defendant did not testify in his own behalf. His [8 ... Wash. 182] counsel now urge that the court erred in not ... instructing the jury that this fact was not to be considered ... to his prejudice. Had such instruction ... ...