Black v. State

18 N.W. 457, 59 Wis. 471, 1884 Wisc. LEXIS 48
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided January 29, 1884·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Cassoday, . J.

It appears from the charge of the trial court that the plaintiff in error was convicted of robbery upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. That court advised the jury against a conviction on such testimony, but did not direct an acquittal, but told them in effect that there could be a legal conviction if they were satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This instruction is the principal error assigned. Where there is no evidence against the accused, except the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, it is discretionary with the trial court whether to direct an acquittal or not. Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis., 647; Mack v. State, 48 Wis., 286; Mercer v. Wright, 3 Wis., 645. A judgment will not be reversed for refusing to set aside a verdict founded upon such testimony alone. Ibid.

The only other error assigned is that the accomplice was induced to testify by reason of immunity offered; still that did not render the witness incompetent, but only went to his credibility, and that was a question for the jury.

By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Black v. State, 18 N.W. 457, 59 Wis. 471, 1884 Wisc. LEXIS 48 (Wis. 1884).

18 N.W. 457 (Black v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Yancey
145 N.W.2d 145 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1966)
H & B American Machine Co. v. United States
81 Ct. Cl. 584 (Court of Claims, 1936)
Fifer v. State
206 N.W. 861 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1926)
State v. Madden
201 N.W. 297 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1924)
State v. Smith
175 N.W. 689 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
Means v. State
104 N.W. 815 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Murphy v. State
102 N.W. 1087 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
State v. Geddes
55 P. 919 (Montana Supreme Court, 1899)
Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Hayes
87 F. 129 (Seventh Circuit, 1898)
Porath v. State
63 N.W. 1061 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1895)
Little v. Superior Rapid Transit Railway Co.
60 N.W. 705 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1894)
State v. Juneau
24 L.R.A. 857 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1894)
Vaughan v. State
20 S.W. 588 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1892)