Case Name: The State v. Hamilton
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1881-12-20
Citations: 57 Iowa 596
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Hamilton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 596–601

Head Matter:
The State v. Hamilton.
1. Criminal Law: amendment op abstract: practice. After the final submission of a criminal cause the defendant filed a motion for leave to amend his abstract, but made no showing therefor, and did not ask to set aside the submission. Held, that the amendment could not be allowed.
2. -: degree oeprooe: jury: reasonable doubt. While a juror who entertains a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt is not required to surrender his convictions, because the other jurors have no such doubt, yet the refusal to so instruct, where the court gave the usual instructions in regard to the degree of proof required, was not error.
S, -: alibi: burden of proof, ft is now tlie settled law of this State that where, iu a criminal case, the defense of an alibi is relied upon, the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish such defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
4. ——: -: Adams, 1, dissenting, held, that if the evidence to establish an alibi was sueli ¡is to raise a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, the jury would be justified in acquitting. Day, J., concurring.
Appeal from Des Moines Circuit Court.
Tuesday, December 20.
The defendant was tried and convicted of the crime of robbery, and he appeals.
J. M. Virgin, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, for the State.

Opinion:
Rothrock, J.
I. Before the submission of this cause the attorney-general filed a motion to strike out all that part of the transcript and abstract purporting to be the evidence, interrogatories and rulings of the court, and interlocutory questions, upon the ground that there is no certificate nor bill of exceptions signed by the judge of the District Court making the evidence and said proceedings of record. An examination was made of the transcript and abstract, and the motion being well taken was sustained. Die cause was thereupon finally and fully submitted. Afterward the defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amendment to his abstract within thirty days. No motion was made to set aside the submission of the cause. The attorney-general resisted the motion to amend upon the ground that the submission had not been set aside, and because no showing was made for leave to amend. The cause comes to us in this condition.
We do not think the application to amend is sufficient. It is not claimed that any bill of exceptions was at any time signed by the trial judge, and filed in the ease, nor that any certificate of the judge to what purports to be evidence was ever appended thereto. We have what purports to be a complete transcript of the record in the court below, and as it appears to us, no amendment of the abstract can be made which will make the evidence available here, because the transcript does not justify such an amendment.
II. It is claimed that a motion for a continuance should have been sustained. It does not appear to us that there was any abuse of the discretion of the court in overruling the motion. It might appear otherwise if the evidence upon which the case was tried was of record.
III. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury in substance, that if any juror entertained a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt he was not required to surrender his convictions because other jurors entertained no such doubts. The instruction was refused and the court gave the usual instructions upon the degree of proof required to convict. Substantially the same instruction was asked in State v. Rorabacker, 19 Iowa, 154, and the refusal to give it was approved by this court. Of course each juror is to act upon his own judgment. He is not required to surrender his convictions unless convinced. He may be aided by his fellow jurors in arriving at the truth, but he is not to find a verdict against his judgment merely because the others en, ter tain views different from his own. But a jury need not be advised of so simple a proposition. The usual method of instructing upon the measure of proof required in criminal cases is sufficient.
IV. The defendant claimed that he was at another place when the robbery was committed. The court instructed the jury that the burden of proof was on the defendant to establish the fact that he was not present, by a preponderance of evidence. This instruction was correct and is now the settled law of the State. State v. Vincent, 24 Iowa, 570; State v. Hardin & Henry, 46 Id., 623; State v. Red, 53 Id., 69; State v. Kline, 54 Id., 183; State v. Northrup, 48 Iowa, 583. We find no error in the record.
Affirmed.