Court Opinion

ID: 9725738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:07:33.479114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:19.158623
License: Public Domain

Oliver, J.
(dissenting) — -I feel compelled to dissent.
In State v. Elmore, 246 Iowa 1318, 1329, 1330, 70 N.W.2d 166, 172, we said, unanimously:
“At the outset it is well to observe the defendant cannot be found guilty merely because he kept the affairs of his office in a slipshod and unbusinesslike manner. * * * defendant can only be found guilty upon the State’s evidence that he converted public money to his own use.”
Now the majority, most of whom joined in the foregoing statement, repudiate it, stating:
“Mr. Elmore was, of course, to blame for this foolish effort to avoid running all county items through the county treasurer’s office. Already he has paid a dear price for his mistakes. Inferences should not be indulged to punish him further, for it may well be that had he kept sufficient records he could have accounted for all the moneys, public and private, that passed through his office. Nevertheless, his clear misuse of public *358funds, as distinguished here from county funds, could not be condoned.”
The record does not support the characterization of Mr. Elmore’s operations as, this foolish effort or as mistakes for which he has paid a dear price or the statement, it may well be that had he kept sufficient records he could have accounted for all the moneys that passed through his hands.
I am convinced State v. Elmore, supra, was not erroneous and should not be overruled. The majority might well have limited its opinion to the consideration of the case before it.