State v. Korsch

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Mathiasen

    267 Minn. 393 (Minn. 1964)   Cited 53 times
    Concluding that the accomplice testimony was not adequately corroborated

    But see, State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389. See, State v. Dunn, supra; State v. Demopoulos, supra; State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10. State v. Rasmussen, supra; State v. Star, supra; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 101 N.W.2d 398.

  2. State v. Smith

    264 Minn. 307 (Minn. 1962)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the State proved causation even though the defendant's โ€œ โ€˜acts were not the immediate cause of deathโ€™ โ€ (quoting State v. Rounds, 104 Vt. 442, 160 A. 249, 252 (1932))

    "The reasons for requiring the testimony of an accomplice to be bolstered by corroborating testimony have been stated by this court in State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348, 175 N.W. 689, and State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111, 268 N.W. 924. The rule since the enactment of the statute is, however, that it does not require a case to be made out against a person accused of a crime sufficient for his conviction before the testimony of an accomplice can be considered, but the corroborating evidence must, independent of the testimony of the accomplice, tend in some degree to establish the guilt of the accused but need not be sufficiently weighty standing alone to justify a conviction. State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10; State v. Baker, 161 Minn. 1, 200 N.W. 815; State v. Whitman, 103 Minn. 92, 114 N.W. 363, 14 Ann. Cas. 309; also see, 5 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) ยง 2457. Evidence relating exclusively to the fact of the commission of the crime and the circumstances thereof, as distinct from defendant's connection therewith, would not be sufficient.

  3. State v. Armstrong

    101 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. 1960)   Cited 30 times
    Concluding Minn. Stat. ยง 634.04 does not require state to produce corroborative evidence that by itself would be sufficient to sustain conviction

    The reasons for requiring the testimony of an accomplice to be bolstered by corroborating testimony have been stated by this court in State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348, 175 N.W. 689, and State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111, 268 N.W. 924. The rule since the enactment of the statute is, however, that it does not require a case to be made out against a person accused of a crime sufficient for his conviction before the testimony of an accomplice can be considered, but the corroborating evidence must, independent of the testimony of the accomplice, tend in some degree to establish the guilt of the accused but need not be sufficiently weighty standing alone to justify a conviction. State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10; State v. Baker, 161 Minn. 1, 200 N.W. 815; State v. Whitman, 103 Minn. 92, 114 N.W. 363, 14 Ann. Cas. 309; also see, 5 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) ยง 2457. Evidence relating exclusively to the fact of the commission of the crime and the circumstances thereof, as distinct from defendant's connection therewith, would not be sufficient. See, State v. Duncan, 158 Iowa 652, 138 N.W. 913.

  4. State v. Sandefur

    82 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 1957)   Cited 3 times

    We have also held that evidence to be sufficiently corroborative under ยง 634.04 must tend in some degree to establish the guilt of the accused and not merely relate to the commission of the crime and the circumstances thereof as distinct from defendant's connection therewith. State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 63 N.W.2d 1; State v. Scott, 203 Minn. 56, 279 N.W. 832; State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111, 268 N.W. 924; State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10; State v. Baker, 161 Minn. 1, 200 N.W. 815; State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348, 175 N.W. 689. 2.

  5. LaCombe v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.

    51 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1952)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that the introduction of photographic evidence requires testimony that the image accurately depicts the conditions at issue

    Truthful testimony may come from a bad source, and there is no arbitrary rule for measuring its credibility or persuasive weight. State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10; 6 Dunnell, Dig. ยงยง 10343a and 10344. The credibility of the witness was primarily for the jury, and we cannot say, in light of the surrounding evidence, that his testimony could not be accepted as substantially true.

  6. State v. Elijah

    206 Minn. 619 (Minn. 1940)   Cited 26 times
    Holding the victim's sexual history admissible only in "exceptional cases" (i.e., when relevant to prove a witness's bias) because consensual relations with third parties generally provide neither a defense to, nor relevant information about, the facts at bar

    Other evidence, even though coming from a bad source, may be believed. State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10. Cross-examination is an agency for the development of truth in judicial inquiries. Its chief purpose is to enable the trier of fact to determine what evidence is credible and what is not. For that purpose it is important to show the relation of the witness to the cause and the parties, his bias or interest, or any other fact which may bear on his truthfulness.

  7. State v. Scott

    279 N.W. 832 (Minn. 1938)   Cited 9 times

    The statute, however, does not require a case to be made out against a person accused of a crime sufficient for his conviction before the testimony of an accomplice can be considered, but the corroborating evidence must, independent of the testimony of the accomplice, tend in some degree to establish the guilt of the accused but need not be sufficiently weighty, standing alone, to justify a conviction. State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10; State v. Baker, 161 Minn. 1, 200 N.W. 815; State v. Whitman, 103 Minn. 92, 114, N.W. 363, 14, Ann. Cas. 309. Evidence which relates exclusively to the fact of the commission of the crime and the circumstances thereof, as distinct from defendant's connection therewith, is not sufficient. State v. Duncan. 158 Iowa, 652, 138 N.W. 913; 16 C. J. p. 703, ยง 1435. 2.

  8. State v. Padares

    246 N.W. 369 (Minn. 1933)   Cited 4 times

    "The corroborating evidence must, independently of the testimony of the accomplice, tend in some degree to establish the guilt of the accused, but need not be sufficiently weighty or full, as, standing alone, to justify a conviction." See State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10, where prior cases on the subject are cited. There was testimony of one witness that a few days before the fire defendant brought over some property of a roomer to the witness' home to keep, for the house here in question was to be burned down. Another witness testified to an admission by defendant after the fire, which the jury could interpret as corroboration of the accomplice, that defendant aided and planned the crime.

  9. State v. Demopoulos

    210 N.W. 883 (Minn. 1926)   Cited 5 times

    The statute is mandatory that such proof is not adequate if depending alone on the testimony of the accomplice. The rule is fully stated and the cases from this court cited in State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354, 210 N.W. 10. That opinion discloses to quite an extent the methods employed by Arver in his nefarious arson operations. There, as here, it was earnestly contended that, even conceding a technical corroboration of Arver, his self-confessed perjury in his own case, his career of crime, his hope of freedom because of the aid he gives the state in the prosecutions of others connected with fires he set, render the proof so doubtful and unreliable that the conviction should not stand.