State v. Froelich

I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority. It is my opinion that the evidence introduced at trial to corroborate the prosecuting witness’s testimony presented at trial is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the requirement of corroboration established by this court.

This court, in State v. Madrid, 74 Idaho 200, 259 P.2d 1044 (1953), the first case in which this court considered the corroboration requirement for conviction pursuant to I.C. § 18-6607, adopted the rule1 enunciated in State v. Elsen, 68 Idaho 50, 54, 187 P.2d 976, 978 (1947):

“If the character or…