State v. Bowman
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
FOLLAND, Chief Justice.
The only questions raised by this appeal are whether the witness Dee Werz was, as a matter of law, an accomplice, or, if not an accomplice to the crime of burglary, if an accessory after the fact or guilty of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen did his testimony nevertheless come under the statutory rule requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony.
Appellant was charged with and convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree committed in the nighttime of August 25, 1935, by breaking and entering the store of the Western Arms & Sporting Goods…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Yeargain v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1935
- People v. ChadwickUtah Supreme Court · 1891
- State v. McComasMontana Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. CorolesUtah Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. CragunUtah Supreme Court · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Monts v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1964
- Pennington v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1971
- State v. SimsArizona Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. SimsArizona Supreme Court · 1965
- United States v. AnthonyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.