
    State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Everett Joy, Appellant.
    1 RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS: Corpus Delicti and Venue — Evidence. Evidence reviewed, and held ample to establish the corpus delicti and venue in a prosecution for receiving stolen property.
    2 RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS: Elements — Larceny (?) or Receiving Stolen Property (?) Evidence tending to show that an accused drove his conveyance to a certain place and there waited until his companion returned, a short time later, with stolen property, which was then loaded by both parties into the conveyance, is .ample (guilty knowledge being shown) to justify a jury finding that the accused was guilty of receiving stolen property.
    3 RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS: Instructions — Harmless Omission. Objeetion to an instruction permitting the jury to find .a verdict o f guilty of receiving stolen property if the accused received the property from "some person," instead of "some other person, is too hypercritical to warrant an inference of prejudice. ’
    4 LARCENY: Ownership — Non-variance. No' variance is presented by an allegation of the ownership of stolen property and mere proof that the said alleged owner had delivered the same to a common carrier and received a bill of lading showing shipment to another party.
    5 LARCENY: Elements — Non-consent to Taking. Non-consent .to the taking of property is inferable from the fact that the owner had delivered it to a common carrier, who had placed it in a sealed ear, and that the car had been broken open and the property removed.
    6 CRIMINAL LAW: Evidence — Admissions—Presumption. Admissions by an accused of guilt are presumptively voluntary. (See Book of Anno., Vol. 1, Sec. 13897, Anno. 18 et seq.)
    
    Headnote 1: 16 C. J. pp. 767, 772. Headnote 2: 34 Cyc. p. 527. Headnote 3: 17 C. J. p. 339. Headnote 4: 34 Cyc. p. 523. Headnote 5: 34 Cye. p. 529. • Headnote 6: 16 C. J. p. 629.
    
      -Headnote 1: 68 L. R. A. 40 et seq..-, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 536; D. R. A. 1916B 846; 17 R. 0. L. 64. Headnote 2: 17 R. O. L. 9. Headnote 4: 17 R. O. L. 70. Headnote 5: 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 950; 17 R. G. L. 49.
    
      Appeal from Harrison District Court.&emdash;W. C. Ratcliff, Judge.
    December 14, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied March. 22, 1927.
    Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of receiving stolen property.
    Affirmed.
    
      William P. Welch and H. L. Robertson, for appellant.
    
      Ben J. Gibson, Attorney-general, and Neill Garrett,'Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.
   Morling, J.

I. The evidence of defendant’s complicity in the stealing or receipt of the property is principally that fur-, nished by his own admissions to the sheriff. The defendant contends that there- is no evidence of the corpus delicti, or of the venue, except his admissions. A freight car in the yards of the Illinois Central Railway Company at Logan was loaded with 148 cases of eggs, which were checked and billed and the ear sealed about 10 o’clock P. M., August 3d. The car was moved east the next morning. At Yetter, the conductor went to open the car, to load more eggs, and found the seal broken and 14 cases gone. He testifies that the ear could not have been entered and the eggs removed after leaving Logan without his knowing about it. The evidence that 14 eases-of eggs were stolen from the car while in the yards at Logan is, regardléss of defendant’s" admissions, very "satisfactory. That the eggs" were concealed and that defendant, with Marvin, on the afternoon of August 4th, took eggs (though not specifically shown by independent evidence to be the same eggs) to another town, and that Marvin there sold them, satisfactorily appears from independent' evidence. The corpus delicti of the larceny and of the concealment of stolen property is shown independently of defendant’s admissions. State v. Westcott, 130 Iowa 1.

' II. Defendant’s main contention is that the evidence shows him guilty- of larcenyjand not of receiving stolen property." Defendant told the sheriff, in substance, that, on the night 'of August 3d, Marvin came to him and asked if he -wanted to make some éásy’ money. -It does not appear that anything was said as to how Marvin proposed to make this easy money, or that anything was said about stealing eggs. Defendant borrowed his brother’s automobile, and drove with Marvin to the railroad yards in Logan. This was after midnight. Defendant stayed in the automobile: " Marvin disappeared’in' the "darkness,’ and returned with a case of eggs' which he placed on the ground beside the automobile. This Marvin did seven times. "While defendant in his admissions to the sheriff spoke of Marvin Vgoing over to the car and getting -the eggs, he. said :that he could not see the car. Defendant and Marvin together- put the seven cases in the automobile and took them away and hid them. They then returned to the yards, and, in like manner seven other cases were brought by Marvin Jo the automobile, loaded, and taken away. Part of. the eggs were afterwards taken by Marvin and defendant from-their place .of concealment and sold, and the proceeds divided,. ■ ■ .

.Defendant could not be convicted of larceny unless he was implicated in the taking of the property. If he had no complicity in-the. theft, and no connection with the property until after the larceny was completed,;and he then received or aided in concealing: the stolen property, knowing -it-to'have been.stolen, he was guilty not of larceny, but of receiving stolen property. People v. Disperati, 11 Cal. App. 469 (105 Pac. 617), and cases cited. Defendant did not take, the eggs out of the car.. The larceny was completed when the thief lifted-the cases from their place in the. car and obtained absolute possession, with intent to steal them. The. removal of the. eggs from the railroad grounds was not an essential element of the crime of larceny. On the evidence, .the larceny might have been fully completed before the defendant saw or touched the eggs. When he first saw them, some, and perhaps all, were already stolen property. It may be that the evidence would warrant a finding that the defendant was so implicated in the original taking asi to be guilty of larceny. Whether Marvin alone stole,the eggs, without the complicity .of defend~nt in the original theft, or whether defendant ~as not implicated in the theft, but recei'~ed them from Marrin or aided Marvin in concealing them, knowing them to have been stolè]i, was, on the eviden~e, a question of fact fo~ tile jury and not of law for the couit

III. The defendant comp1ain~ that the ~óürt in the instructions permitted the ~ury to ññd the dec~ndant guilty of receiving st~len property from " some person or persoias," whereas h~ ~h~u1d have imserted the word. ` before the words "~erson or pei~sons!'~ `The claim is that, by such instructions as given, the court permitted a finding of guilty of the crime of meeivinig sto1e~n property although the defendant was him~ëlf the thief. We are of the ~pithOn that, on a fafr é&nsideration of~ all th~ instriieti&a~, the jury could not have been mi~ie~ ml that r~spec~,andthabthe e~cecption is hot ~vell fouuded.

IV. It is claimed that, while the indietnieiit ehârge~ th~ preperty to have been that of the Logan Produce Oomipány, the evidence shows that the property had been delivered to a common earner; that it was consigned to ano.the~; and that the Logan Produce Oompany was, therefore, no longer the owner. The evidence is that the Logan Produèe Company delivered ~the eggs to the railroad company; that a bill of lading was thade out for them to a~'fii'm at Rhckwell Cit~,r. The bill ~f 1~diiig wá~ tâk~n b~ the Logan Pr~d~ce Company. Thei~e is no showing that, the `bill of lading was ever d~livea~e~. tq, the, corisign~e, j~or, of course, is there any showing of the relationship of the consignee to the consignor, whether the consignment was on ~le to' the cori~igneé, or whether the consignment was for a ~`ale by the eonsig~ee on account of the consignor. It is also claimed that a member of th~ Logan Produce .Cbm~any who haft n~ part i~i the `shipment of the eggs, and, so far a~, appears, had no part at afl in the business èonneeted with them, should have been proved not to have consented to the taking of the ~gs by the alleged thie~f. The evidence is that this other partner had nothing to do with the shipment; that he was ~ut Gf town. The eggs were in the ~ossessieñ of the Illinois Cent~al Railway Company. The car had been sealed, but the seal was broken and the eggs removed. Non-co'ns~nt sufficiently appears from the circumstances. State v. Prentice, 192 Iowa 207. The sufficiency of the proof of the alleged ownership was for the jury.

V. It is contended that the evidence of admissions was inadmissible because the admissions were not shown to have been voluntarily made. The presumption is that they were voluntary. There is no evidence to the contrary. The evidence was • admissible. State v. Storms, 113 Iowa 385; State v. Penney, 113 Iowa 691. The 31 assignments of error raise no other questions demanding discussion. • .

The defendant was a boy, only 18 years of age, and a strong appeal for sympathy for him is made by his counsel. He evidently was, allowed to remain out. nights and to fall into bad company. He was, however, .of the age of responsibility, and these considerations are for another department of the government. We find no error.

The judgment is — Affirmed.

De Graef, C. J., and Evans and Vermilion, JJ., concur.  