State v. Harned

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hutchison, J.:

The defendant in this case was convicted of grand larceny, largely upon the evidence of an accomplice. The defendant appeals, urging three errors in particular: that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, that one of the jurors was disqualified, and newly discovered evidence. The discrepancies as to dates are relied upon strongly by appellant to show that the evidence of the state was unreliable and impossible. There appear to be only two positively fixed dates in the testimony of the state; one is January 7, 1928, when the wife of the…