State v. Myers

Morling, J. —

I. Defendant contends that the State’s witness Glotfelty, who testified to the alleged commission of the crime, Was an accomplice, and that the’court should have charged the jury that a convictiOn could not be had upon his testimony unless corroborated. There was no instruction upon the. subject. Glotfblty was the owner of the car, and was riding in it, while defendant was driving, at the time to which the indictment relates. According to Glotfelty’s testimony, both were drinking, before and while they were riding in the car. Their common mission in driving the car at the time…