State v. Mercer

Defendant appeals from his conviction of receiving stolen property and from the order denying a motion for new trial. His chief contention is that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict in that Bernard Girson, who stole and sold him the property, was, according to the state’s evidence, de fendant’s accomplice and that the latter’s testimony was not -corroborated as required by section 11988, Revised Codes,

The state’s evidence was that on February 14, 1941, Girson approached defendant in the latter’s barroom and asked him whether he “could use what I had,” and apparently…