Filbert v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3600,3600 |
| Citation | 436 P.2d 959 |
| Parties | John O. FILBERT, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Jack Wolfe, Sheridan, for appellant.
James E. Barrett, Atty. Gen., Lynn R. Garrett, Deputy Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before HARNSBERGER, C. J., and GRAY, McINTYRE and PARKER, JJ.
John O. Filbert, convicted of aggravated robbery against Dave Fields, appeals and charges error on grounds to which reference will in part be made hereafter. Defendant maintained his innocence of the crime and no direct evidence of his guilt was presented except the testimony of John Hoblit, who previous to the time of the trial had pleaded guilty to a like offense against Fields and had been placed on probation. According to Hoblit's testimony, on November 16, 1965, he, Wally Baldwin, and the defendant after drinking together in Sheridan bars decided to try to get some money and about ten o'clock that evening went to the home of Clifford Strauser in Filbert's car where Hoblit borrowed a gun, purportedly for poaching, and the three then went to the Fields place some seven miles from town, parked the car, Filbert staying with the vehicle and Hoblit and Baldwin going to the Fields home, where they threatened Fields with the gun, which was discharged when Fields resisted, the two taking his money and returning to where Filbert was waiting in the parked car. They drove to town and the three split the money.
The victim's daughter, who was present at the time of the robbery, said she saw the two men go the the car and while they were approaching the automobile its lights went on and the motor started. A patrolman, Bradley, testified that about eleven o'clock he saw Baldwin and Hoblit in Filbert's car and Filbert was outside standing on the concrete near the car. Defendant testified that he had given his car keys to Hoblit around 9:30 p. m. so that he and Baldwin could go home and change clothes and that he had not seen them again until after 11:30 p. m. when they picked him up and drove to the cafe for a sandwich. Bradley also testified that car tracks similar to those of defendant's automobile were found at the fields place following the incident. After the reporting of the robbery defendant's car was located and when he was arrested he volunteered permission to have the car searched and the rifle, identified by Strauser as the gun he loaned to Hoblit, was found in the trunk.
Defendant argues that his motion for directed verdict should have been granted on the ground that other than the polluted testimony of Hoblit, which was insufficient on which to base the verdict, there was a complete absence of evidence. We cannot accept this argument. Even were this a jurisdiction requiring corroboration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grable v. State
...that the defendant's guilt has been determined even though that fact is peculiarly within the province of the jury. Filbert v. State, Wyo., 436 P.2d 959, 960 (1968). See, also, People v. Brown, 44 Mich.App. 402, 205 N.W.2d 207, 209 But, even if we understand the judge's remark to indicate t......
-
Wheeler v. State
... ... The pattern jury instruction reflects the status of the law on testimony of an accomplice. Ostrowski v. State, Wyo., 665 P.2d 471 (1983); Phillips v. State, Wyo., 553 P.2d 1037 (1976); Miller v. State, Wyo., 508 P.2d 1207 (1973); Pike v. State, Wyo., 495 P.2d 1188 (1972); Filbert v. State, Wyo., 436 P.2d 959 (1968). The issue here does not concern the propriety of the instruction itself, but only whether or not there was evidence to warrant the instruction, i.e., was Witt an accomplice? ... An accomplice, or an accessory before the fact is a person who ... ...
-
Adams v. State
...be sustained on such testimony alone if it is convincing and credible. Ostrowski v. State, 665 P.2d 471, 487 (Wyo. 1983); Filbert v. State, 436 P.2d 959, 960 (Wyo.1968). Application of this principle to the present facts leads to the conclusion that no corroborating evidence was required if......
-
Vlahos v. State, 02-154.
...be sustained on such testimony alone if it is convincing and credible. Ostrowski v. State, 665 P.2d 471, 487 (Wyo. 1983); Filbert v. State, 436 P.2d 959, 960 (Wyo.1968). Application of this principle to the present facts leads to the conclusion that no corroborating evidence was required if......