Case Name: State of Iowa v. E. Stanley, Appellant
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1899-10-06
Citations: 109 Iowa 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Iowa v. E. Stanley, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
State of Iowa v. E. Stanley, Appellant.
Conviction: Review on appeal. Where defendant was identified by 1 the complaining witness, and relies on testimony of himself and four companions, going to establish an alibi, under circumstances tending to show their bad character and associations, the conviction will not be set aside on appeal.
Included offenses: Instructions. The defendant in a prosecution for robbery, cannot complain that the question of his guilt of the 2 crime charged in the indictment, only, was submitted without any reference to included offenses, where there was no ground to suppose that the crime was committed otherwise than as described, by the prosecuting witness, and the robbery was uncon-troverted, except by defendant’s denial of his presence; especially where such submission was requested by defendant’s counsel and acquiesced in by the state.
Appeal from Woodbury District Court. — 1HoN. T. E. Oliver, Judge.
Friday, October 6, 1899.
The defendant, having been indicted and convicted of robbery, appeals.
Affirmed.-

Opinion:
Lade, J.-
The accused was identified by Faeth as the person who compelled him, at the point of a revolver, to hold np his hands, and submit to having fourteen dollars tahen from his pockets. This was put in issue by the defendant and four others, who testified to having passed 'the entire night in another part of the city carousing. In view of the character 'and associations of these witnesses, as disclosed by the evidence, we are not inclined-to question the conclusion reached by the jury.
At the request of the defendant's counsel, acquiesced in by the state, the co-urt only submitted the issue of guilt of the crime charged in the indictment, and omitted all reference to the included offenses. There was no ground to suppose that, if the money was taken at all, it was obtained in a manner other than that described by Faeth. The fact of robbery by some one was not controverted, save in defendant's denial of having been present. If, then, he took the money, the act was robbery, and nothing less. State v. Reasby, 100 Iowa, 231. Under the circumstances disclosed, the defendant cannot be heard to complain.— Affirmed.