(DOWNLOAD) "State v. Keckonen" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Keckonen
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 16, 1938
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
Criminal Law ? Crime Against Nature ? Testimony of Accomplice ? Rule as to Corroboration Required ? Corroboration Held Insufficient. Criminal Law ? Accomplices ? Corroboration Rule Imperative. 1. Where conviction of one charged with crime rests solely upon the testimony of an accomplice, section 11988, Revised Codes, imperatively requires that such testimony must be corroborated by other evidence - Page 254 which in itself tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, the corroboration being insufficient if it merely shows its commission or the circumstances thereof, and the trial court has no discretion in the matter but must apply the statute in all such cases. Same ? Corroboration of Accomplice ? Function of Jury. 2. After the testimony of an accomplice has been corroborated as required by the above section, the jury may weigh his entire testimony in order to determine the guilt of the defendant. Same ? Nature of Testimony Required to Render It Corroborative of That of Accomplice. 3. To meet the requirement of section 11988, supra, that the testimony of an accomplice must tend to connect with the commission of the offense charged, testimony upon immaterial matters or such as raises a suspicion or conjecture is insufficient, but it must have a tendency to establish the states case and not be equally consonant with a reasonable explanation pointing to innocent conduct on the part of defendant. Same ? Crime Against Nature ? Testimony Corroborative of That of Accomplice Held Insufficient. 4. Testimony in a prosecution for the infamous crime against nature (sodomy) claimed by the state as sufficiently corroborative of that of a boy accomplice in that it tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, held insufficient as either showing simply opportunity of defendant to commit the crime, or a suspicion that he had committed it, or that he and the boy were together in the same room when arrested, or that he had made gifts to the boy, or the boys nervous condition, etc., and therefore insufficient to warrant conviction. Same ? Crime Against Nature ? Prejudice Against Accused ? Duty of Court in Instructing Jury. 5. In a prosecution for the infamous crime against nature, courts should be assiduously on guard to warn the jury against yielding to the dictates of the intense prejudice naturally evoked by such a charge or convict upon slight evidence, since the charge is easily made, hard to prove and still harder to disprove.