State v. Stevens

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtBECK
Citation67 Iowa 557,25 N.W. 777
Decision Date12 December 1885
PartiesSTATE v. STEVENS.

67 Iowa 557
25 N.W. 777

STATE
v.
STEVENS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 12, 1885.


Appeal from Hardin district court.

Defendant was convicted of burglary, and now appeals to this court.

[25 N.W. 777]

Tom H. Milner, for appellant, William Stevens.

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


BECK, C. J.

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
17 practice notes
  • State v. Baker, No. 48355
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 21, 1954
    ...explicit as a party may desire, error cannot be based thereon, in the absence of a request for additional instruction. State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa 557, 559, 25 N.W. 777; State v. Tweedy, 11 Iowa 350, 360; State v. Jones, supra, 145 Iowa 176, 178-179, 123 N.W. 960; State v. Schenk, supra, 236 ......
  • State v. Schenk, No. 46268.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 3, 1945
    ...the acts and declarations of the defendant himself. State v. Caine, 134 Iowa 147, 111 N.W. 443; State v. Moore, supra; State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa 557, 25 N.W. 777.State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa 25, 56 N.W. 272. In State v. Moore, supra (conspiracy), the defendant Moore and another were indicted a......
  • State v. Kimball, No. 53564
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 5, 1970
    ...v. Bower (1921), 191 Iowa 713, 716, 183 N.W. 322; State v. Weems (1895), 96 Iowa 426, 448--449, 65 N.W. 387; State v. Stevens (1885), 67 Iowa 557, 559, 25 N.W. 777. After this statutory requirement was repealed our cases held it was not reversible error for the state's attorney to comment o......
  • State v. Carnagy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 20, 1898
    ...v. State, 25 Pac. 452. In the absence of a request, such an instruction is not required in this state. State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa, 557, 25 N. W. 777. In that case it was said: “Had such instruction been requested, it, doubtless, would have been given.” A similar intimation is found in Metz v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State v. Baker, No. 48355
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 21, 1954
    ...explicit as a party may desire, error cannot be based thereon, in the absence of a request for additional instruction. State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa 557, 559, 25 N.W. 777; State v. Tweedy, 11 Iowa 350, 360; State v. Jones, supra, 145 Iowa 176, 178-179, 123 N.W. 960; State v. Schenk, supra, 236 ......
  • State v. Schenk, No. 46268.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 3, 1945
    ...the acts and declarations of the defendant himself. State v. Caine, 134 Iowa 147, 111 N.W. 443; State v. Moore, supra; State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa 557, 25 N.W. 777.State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa 25, 56 N.W. 272. In State v. Moore, supra (conspiracy), the defendant Moore and another were indicted a......
  • State v. Kimball, No. 53564
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 5, 1970
    ...v. Bower (1921), 191 Iowa 713, 716, 183 N.W. 322; State v. Weems (1895), 96 Iowa 426, 448--449, 65 N.W. 387; State v. Stevens (1885), 67 Iowa 557, 559, 25 N.W. 777. After this statutory requirement was repealed our cases held it was not reversible error for the state's attorney to comment o......
  • State v. Carnagy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 20, 1898
    ...v. State, 25 Pac. 452. In the absence of a request, such an instruction is not required in this state. State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa, 557, 25 N. W. 777. In that case it was said: “Had such instruction been requested, it, doubtless, would have been given.” A similar intimation is found in Metz v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT