State v. Bartlett
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Defendant was convicted of keeping an establishment and equipment for gambling contrary to the provisions of SDC 24.9903. -
The conviction rests upon the testimony of Arnold Dorothy, an accomplice. If the conviction is to be sustained the testimony of Dorothy must be corroborated by other evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. SDC 34.3636. We are convinced that the testimony of J. D. Evans constitutes the necessary corroboration. This witness testified that on various occasions he had been at the place and observed defendant operating the gambling…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. DrapeauSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
- State v. HicksSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- State v. WalshSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
- State v. KruseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926