State v. Van Voltenburg
Decision Date | 10 January 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 51788,51788 |
Citation | 147 N.W.2d 869,260 Iowa 200 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Gean Elvin VAN VOLTENBURG, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Lawrence Scalise, Atty. Gen., Ronald A. Riley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jack M. Fulton, Linn County Atty., and Thomas M. Horan, Asst. County Atty., for appellant.
Blake H. Shipton, Center Point, for appellee.
By county attorney's information defendant was charged with possession of burglar's tools, entered a plea of not guilty, was tried, convicted and sentenced. His motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled and he appeals.
About 2:15 a.m., September 8, 1964, a private watchman saw defendant enter an alleyway in Cedar Rapids. The watchman first called the police, then in his automobile entered the alley, located defendant, and they talked briefly. During this conversation the watchman saw defendant raise his shirt and remove a brown paper bag which he placed under the left rear wheel of the watchman's car. Defendant then walked away. The watchman promptly retrieved the paper bag in which he found a short pry bar and a screw driver with cloth tape around the handle. He followed defendant, the police came, arrested him, and a search of his person revealed he was carrying a stainless steel butter knife.
On trial expert testimony was presented to the effect these instruments were tools normally and commonly used in the crime of burglary. See State v. McHenry, 207 Iowa 760, 771, 223 N.W. 535.
Defendant assigns two errors relied on for reversal. First: Code section 708.7, which provides a statutory presumption is unconstitutional, being in violation of Amendments 5 and 14, Constitution of the United States. Second: Permitting the prosecution to inquire, on cross-examination of accused, as to prior felonies and number of convictions, violated defendant's rights under Amendment 14, Constitution of the United States.
I. Counsel for defendant should bear in mind rule 344(a)(4)(e), R.C.P. Although this is a criminal case we again suggest citing the volume and page where one of our cases may be found in Both the Iowa Reports and North Western Reporter, if reported therein. See Nelson v. Cities Service Oil Company, Iowa, 146 N.W.2d 261, 262, and State v. Bradley, 254 Iowa 211, 223, 116 N.W.2d 439.
It would also be helpful, when citing cases in the United States Supreme Court Reports, to provide us with the volume and page where found in the Supreme Court Reporter.
II. Code section 708.7 states as follows:
Defendant contends the statutory presumption provided in the last sentence of the act is constitutionally offensive.
Generally the test of constitutionality of statutes making proof of a certain fact presumptive or prima facie evidence of another fact, is whether there is a natural evidentiary relation between the fact established by proof and the ultimate fact presumed. See 12 C.J.S. Burglary § 69, page 753; 1o Am.Jur.2d, Burglary, section 77, page 369; Underhill's Criminal Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 46, page 75; and Annos. 162 A.L.R. 495.
III. In Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467--468, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1244--1245, 87 L.Ed. 1519, a congressional act to the effect that where a person previously convicted of a crime of violence is found in possession of firearms or ammunition it shall be presumed the article was received in interstate or foreign commerce, was held unconstitutional. The court there said:
The same court later held an act of Congress which authorized the drawing of an inference an accused violated a law prohibiting the business of operating as a distiller or rectifier without giving prescribed bond from his unexplained presence at the site of an illegal still was constitutionally permissible, and in so doing stated:
'* * * the constitutionality of the legislation depends upon the rationality of the connection 'between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed.' (Citation) The process of making the determination of rationality is, by its nature, highly empirical, and in matters not within specialized judicial competence or completely commonplace, signifiant weight should be accorded the capacity of Congress to amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it. * * *
'The rationality of the inference provided by * * * must be viewed in the context of the broad substantive offense it supports. * * *.
United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 66--68, 85 S.Ct. 754, 757--758. See also Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178, 45 S.Ct. 470, 69 L.Ed. 904.
IV. The law here challenged has been previously considered by this court.
In State v. Kappen, 191 Iowa 19, 24, 180 N.W. 307, we held the statutory presumption to which defendant here takes exception is not conclusive in that it serves only to make proof of one fact presumptive or prima facie evidence of another fact.
The statute was also discussed in Mahar v. Lainson, 247 Iowa 297, 72 N.W.2d 516. It was there held the act is not violative of any constitutional due process mandate because it fails to specificially describe burglar's tools.
Then in State v. Furlong, 216 Iowa 428, 249 N.W. 132, the rebuttability of the challenged statutory presumption was again demonstrated.
See also State v. Smith, 247 Iowa 500, 503, 73 N.W.2d 189.
Although defendant does not challenge the instructions given we note the jury was advised by the trial court to the effect the statutory presumption here involved is not conclusive, it imposes no burden of proof on defendant, and even if the possession of burglary tools remained unexplained defendant could not be found guilty if the state failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
V. The statutory enactment here in question does not denounce as unlawful the possession of any particular implements or tools. Possession of a specific instrument or combination of articles may or may not be prohibited by law, depending upon whether the evidence reveals circumstances from which it may be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt the party or parties, standing in the position of a possessor, intended use of the article or instrumentalities for the purpose of committing or aiding in the perpetration of a burglary.
This law simply creates a rebuttable presumption of criminal intent from possession of burglarious tools under circumstances which reasonably and logically lead to that inference, leaving it to the trier of the facts to ultimately resolve the matter according to all the evidence. This is nothing more nor less than a rule of evidence not alone determinative of any fact.
In a similar vein this court has held proof of possession of recently stolen goods, when it is also shown the larceny took place in connection with a burglary, is sufficient to warrant a conviction of breaking and entering. See State v. Dwinells, Iowa, 146 N.W.2d 231.
In the case now before...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Catholic Charities of Archdiocese of Dubuque v. Zalesky, 2--56720
...216 (Iowa 1972) (inference arising from the presence of a specified percentage of alcohol in defendant's blood); State v. Van Voltenburg, 260 Iowa 200, 147 N.W.2d 869 (1967) (inference or presumption of criminal intent from the possession of burglar In any event, should this position be int......
-
State v. Carey
...246 Iowa 1275, 1283, 71 N.W.2d 35, 40; State v. Frese, 256 Iowa 289, 292, 127 N.W.2d 83, 85, and citations; State v. Van Voltenburg, 260 Iowa 200, 147 N.W.2d 869, 873, 874. In the present case the county attorney had information which he conceded was hearsay to the effect that on the day of......
-
State v. Martin, 55207
...711 (1971); Spencer v. State of Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 560--565, 87 S.Ct. 648, 652--654, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967); State v. Van Voltenburg, 260 Iowa 200, 210, 147 N.W.2d 869 (1967); Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255, 260--262 III. That brings us to the specifies of the first ques......
-
State v. Hackett, 55158
...transgressing the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.' Id., at 85, 90 S.Ct., at 1898.' (Emphasis supplied.) See State v. Van Voltenburg, 260 Iowa 200, 208--210, 147 N.W.2d 869 (1967); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 235 A.2d 111, 114--116 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1025, 88 S.Ct. 1412, 20 L.E......