Legal Opinion

State v. Bartlett

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1946No. File No. 8814Published

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

  1. State v. DrapeauSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
  2. State v. HicksSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
  3. State v. WalshSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
  4. State v. KruseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
  5. State v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API