State v. Keelen
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, C. J.
1-4. We can discover no possible objection to the instructions complained of. They correctly state the law. Dooley, on the face of the indictment and from the fact of conviction, was an accomplice and a confessed one, so that the court had a right as a matter of law to instruct the jury that it should not convict the defendant upon his uncorroborated testimony, and we understand counsel to concede that the instructions are proper so far as they relate to Dooley. The complaint is that the court should have gone further and instructed the jury in regard to the testimony of one Lemberg or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. ChaseOregon Supreme Court · 1922
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. PrattOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Godvig v. LopezOregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Hotelling v. WaltherOregon Supreme Court · 1944
- Fitze v. American-Hawaiian Steamship Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1941
- State v. EdmunsonOregon Supreme Court · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.