State v. Wart
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Buena Vista District Court. The defendant and one Wheeler were jointly indicted for the crime of setting fire to and burning á store in the nighttime. The defendant was tried separately, and convicted and sentenced. He now appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
Adams, J., „ ativcevidence! accomplice. — The store which was burned was in the town of Newell. That the fire was set by an incendiary was clearly established by the fact that goods which were in s^ore immediately before the fire were found secreted in the town. The evidence connecting Wart with the crime is wholly circumstantial. The principal witness for the State was Wart’s co-defendant, Wheeler. It is claimed by Wart that the evidence shows that Wheeler was an accomplice, and that he is wholly uncorroborated. If Wheeler was not an accomplice the evidence is abundantly sufficient to…
2Cited by16 opinions
- State v. BaileySupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- State v. FosterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Charlton v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
- State v. BogardusSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- State v. LindsaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.