State v. Wackernagel
| Decision Date | 08 October 1902 |
| Citation | 91 N.W. 761,118 Iowa 12 |
| Parties | STATE v. WACKERNAGEL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Taylor county; R. L. Parrish, Judge.
Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of larceny, and from the judgment and sentence imposed appeals. Reversed.McCoun & Jennings and Flick & Jackson, for appellant.
Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and Chas. A. Van Vleck, for the State.
On the evening of March 2, 1901, five hogs belonging to one R. C. Beamer were taken from the stock yards at the town of Clearfield, and placed in the stock yards at the town of Lennox, some 10 miles distant. Defendant and his brother Frank were jointly indicted for the larceny of these animals, and at defendant's request he was given a separate trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment of guilty.
That the hogs were conveyed from one place to the other by a team and wagon belonging to the father of the defendant, and that whoever drove it was also guilty of the larceny of some harness on the same evening, is so well settled as to be beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. The only difficulty in the case lies in the lack of evidence tending to connect defendant with either larceny. The harness which was stolen was found in a barn owned and controlled by defendant's father, and to which either the father or the brother had as ready access as the defendant. The only evidence, then, which tends to connect defendant with the larceny, is that of several witnesses, who said they saw two men in the wagon on its way from Clearfield to Lennox and at Lennox; and of one who said that one of the men he saw would compare favorably with the defendant. No one pretends to identify defendant as being one of the men who was in the wagon or at Lennox, where the hogs were left. Evidence of similar crimes committed at the same time, and by the same person, is sometimes admissible, but where offered, as in this case, to show defendant's connection with the main offense, it should sufficiently appear that defendant was connected with the subject of the larceny. In the instant case there is no evidence, other than the finding of the stolen property, tending to connect defendant with the crime. It was not found in defendant's possession, and had no more of a tendency to connect defendant with the larceny than his brother or his father. Indeed, the presumption is that the father was in control of the premises where the harness was found, and there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...denied, 414 U.S. 857, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38 L.Ed.2d 108; State v. Porter, 229 Iowa 882, 886, 294 N.W. 898, 900 (1940); State v. Wackernagel, 118 Iowa 12, 14, 91 N.W. 761, 762 (1902); see State v. Hopkins, 192 N.W.2d 747, 749 (Iowa 1971); cf. United States v. Spica, 413 F.2d 129, 131 (8 Cir. 1969......
-
State v. Ripperger, 86-319
...414 U.S. 857, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38, L.Ed.2d 108; State v. Porter, 229 Iowa 882, 886, 294 N.W. 898, 900 (1940); State v. Wackernagel, 118 Iowa 12, 14, 91 N.W. 761, 762 (1902); see State v. Hopkins, 192 N.W.2d 747, 749 (Iowa 1971); cf. United States v. Spica, 413 F.2d 129, 131 (8 Cir.1969) ("it i......
-
State v. Nelson
...acts in question. Obviously, evidence of crimes of third persons is not relevant to the issue. In the language of State v. Wackernagel, 118 Iowa 12, 14, 91 N.W. 761, 762, " * * * in the absence of a showing that defendant was guilty of * * * [the other crime] the evidence should not have be......
- State v. Wackernagel