State v. Taylor, 55206

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtHeard before MOORE; McCORMICK
Citation201 N.W.2d 724
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Edward Curtis TAYLOR, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 55206,55206
Decision Date18 October 1972

Page 724

201 N.W.2d 724
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
Edward Curtis TAYLOR, Appellant.
No. 55206.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Oct. 18, 1972.

Page 725

Gene L. Needles, Des Moines, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., C. Joseph Coleman, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Raymond A. Fenton, Polk County Atty., for appellee.


McCORMICK, Justice.

Defendant was convicted by jury and sentenced for breaking and entering under Code § 708.8. His appeal presents three questions: 1) Was the evidence sufficient for submission of the case to the jruy? 2) Did trial court err by commenting in ruling upon an objection? 3) Did trial court err in admitting a fingerprint identification opinion? We find no reversible error and affirm.

I. Sufficiency of the evidence. Evidence is sufficient to support a verdict if it is substantial and the verdict is not contrary to its clear weight. In deciding whether it is sufficient we view it in its light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Gray, 199 N.W.2d 57, 59 (Iowa 1972). In this case there was ample evidence from which the jury could find the Horold T. Brown home was broken into during the afternoon of May 29, 1971, during the Browns' absence. A TV set and other items of personal property were taken. Three men were involved, two of whom broke the glass out of the rear storm door and entered while the third waited in front. The three left together on foot.

The main issue was identification of defendant as one of the three men involved.

Page 726

This identification was supplied in two ways. First, there was evidence a print from defendant's left index finger was on a sliver of the glass from the door found on the kitchen floor of the home. Mr. Brown said defendant never had permission to be in his home and had not to his knowledge previously been there. A neighbor testified he saw defendant nearby with two other men earlier in the afternoon. Second, he was identified through testimony of Sharon Williams, 18, who lived next door and Sharon's friend Linda Renteria, 19, had been visiting her. Linda said she was outside the Williams home when she heard the glass break next door and then saw two men whom she did not know enter the home. She later saw them come out. She went in the Williams home and told Sharon she thought they had broken into the Brown home. Although Sharon got outside in time to see the three men walk away together she did not recognize them from the rear. The girls got in a car and went in the direction they saw them walking and located them five or ten minutes later two blocks away on University...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Duncan, 64531
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 25, 1981
    ...the making of the print by someone else. The print could not be used by the State to identify defendant as the burglar. State v. Taylor, 201 N.W.2d 724, 726-27 (Iowa 1972) (foundation requirement). Defense counsel could have properly objected at trial to any such argument by the prosecutor ......
  • State v. Johnson, 56728
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 18, 1974
    ...subject of expert testimony, an objection that it invades the province of the jury is invalid. State v. Hines, supra; State v. Taylor, 201 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Iowa 1972), and citations; see Een v. Consolidated Freightways, 220 F.2d 82, 87 (8 Cir. 1955). However, the objection that the opinion ......
  • State v. Sheridan, 58443
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 17, 1976
    ...and not available. See State v. Hicks, Iowa, 245 N.W.2d 319, 320; State v. Hines, Iowa, 223 N.W.2d 190, 192; State v. Taylor, Iowa, 201 N.W.2d 724, 727; Bengford v. Carlem Corporation, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 855, 865, and In State v. Johnson, Iowa, 224 N.W.2d 617, 622, we say: 'The objection in t......
  • State v. Reese, 59747
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 23, 1977 the evidence. State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1975); State v. Hendren, 216 N.W.2d 302, 305 (Iowa 1974); State v. Taylor, 201 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Iowa 1972). In State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d at 748, the following apropos to this proposition "Abraham testified Patty telephoned at abo......
  • 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