State v. Mathiasen, 39085
| Decision Date | 06 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 39085,39085 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James A. MATHIASEN, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Although the corroborating evidence of the testimony of an accomplice required by Minn.St. 634.04 need not be of itself adequate to establish a prima facie case of guilt, it must affirm the truth of the accomplice's testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree. Sources of such evidence may include scientific analysis of physical objects connected with the alleged crime; reported admissions by the accused; and suspicious and unexplained conduct of the accused either before or after the offense. Failure of the defendant to testify does not, in itself, provide the required evidentiary support, but if he does testify, inadequacies in his testimony may be corroborative of the assertions of the accomplice. Relevant facts provable by evidence secured from such sources include participation in the preparation for the criminal act; opportunity and motive; proximity of the defendant to the place where the crime was committed under unusual circumstances; association with persons involved in the crime in such a way as to suggest joint participation; possession of an instrument or instruments probably used to commit the offense; and unexplained affluence or possession of the fruits of criminal conduct.
2. On appeal from a judgment of conviction for robbery in the third degree, record is reviewed in the light of the foregoing principles for corroboration required of an accomplice, and it is held that in the absence of adequate corroboration tending to convict defendant of the commission of the offense a new trial is required.
Willard P. Lorette, St. Cloud, for appellant.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Solicitor Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
The appeal is from a judgment of conviction of a felony. Defendant was charged with first-degree robbery in violation of Minn.St. 619.42(2), it being alleged that he did 'feloniously rob, take, steal, and carry away from the person and possession of one William Duncan, Two Hundred and no/100 ($200.00) Dollars.'
Duncan, called as a witness by the state, was born in 1896 and lives between Howard Lake and Cokato, Minnesota. He had $200 (ten twenties) in his billfold when, on Friday, May 25, 1962, he drove to the A and D Bar in St. Cloud. Arriving there about noon, he became acquainted with Arthur Dimler and James Mathiasen, the defendant. Then, he said, he and Mathiasen went to a nearby liquor store and got a point of whisky, which they drank at the tavern. Later an additional half pint of liquor was purchased and consumed. He testified:
'* * * After a while the boys said to me, 'Bill, will you buy a drink' and I reached for my hip pocket and my wallet was gone, and that is what started the row over this deal.
'* * * I didn't see who had taken it, but Dimler and Mathiasen they crowded up around me and one, Dimler, or Mathiasen, he punched me up a little bit, and I think Dimler is the one who got my wallet.'
He claimed that it was during this scuffle, occurring in the tavern at about 3 p.m., that his wallet was stolen.
Although he said that 'it was between Mathiasen or Dimler' that his wallet was taken, he did not have any specific fact upon which to base his charge against Mathiasen except that '(h)e was the only man back of me when Dimler grabbed me around the neck.' He expressed his difficulty in observing Mathiasen this way: 'How can I see back of me, how can you see back of you if some man held your neck and pull up on you, how can you turn around and see who took your wallet.' But he noticed his wallet was gone 'after this scuffle.'
'I probably called them names and wanted to do a little fighting with them.
'We scuffled in there a while, and Then we went outside; I was going to go home, and they followed me out there and gave me a little cuffing up out by the car.' (Italics supplied.)
Margaret Hawla, employed at a place of business near the A and D Bar, looked out at this time and observed that 'Mathiasen was scuffling with Mr. Duncan, and Dimler was standing there.'
According to Duncan, the fracas lasted 'probably ten minutes, five minutes, something like that, and they went back over to the A and D Bar and I went back with them.' Then 'they called the cops right away.'
Roman Koetter of the St. Cloud Police Department received a police radio call at about 3 p.m. on May 25, 1962, in response to which he went to the A and D Bar where he saw Duncan, Dimler, and Mathiasen. Duncan charged that his billfold had been stolen. Dimler and Mathiasen 'seemed a little perturbed that they were being accused of taking it by Mr. Duncan,' but Duncan 'insisted it had been stolen.'
Harold Olson, also of the St. Cloud Police Department, arrived at the A and D Bar at about the same time and noted the presence of Duncan, Dimler, Mathiasen, and the bartender, Fritz Thole. Efforts on the part of the policemen to locate the billfold which Duncan claimed had been stolen were unavailing. Duncan was arrested and taken to the city jail where he was booked on a drunk charge. The police officers then 'went back to check around the area some more.' Mathiasen and Dimler had gone by this time. On the following Monday, Officer Olson, with the assistance of Dimler, located the billfold at a point where it had been discarded.
Arthur Dimler, admittedly an accomplice, said that he and Mathiasen met about 11 a.m. on May 25 at the home of a mutual friend and, after going to the A and D Bar together, became acquainted with Duncan as they drank his whisky. 'At one time,' according to Dimler, 'Mr. Duncan bet me a round of drinks for the house I could not knock his hat off; that was the only scuffle inside the place prior to the complaint.' This, said Dimler, 'was the only disturbance up to the point where he claimed someone stole his wallet.' In that connection Dimler related:
'A. We were drinking and he (Duncan) decided he was going to leave and drive his car, and both me and Mr. Mathiasen told him he was in no condition to drive, and he still wanted to go out to the car, and one of us got on either side to assist him out to the car, and when we got out there that is when he complained he lost his billfold.
'Q. Is that the first time you heard any complaint about the loss of the billfold?
'A. Yes.
'Q. After you got out to the car?
'A. Yes.
'Q. What happened out there at the car, tell us in your own words?
Dimler went back into the A and D Bar, wallet in hand, and 'ditched the billfold in the small ventilator' in the men's room; reentering the bar he called the police because 'I figured it would look a little better if I called myself.'
After the police came and took Duncan to jail, Dimler and Mathiasen 'stayed for a few minutes and had a couple of drinks before I went back to the men's room and removed the billfold.' Dimler put the wallet in Mathiasen's car 'in the seat between the two of us.' There was some money in it; he didn't know how much. Dimler said that Mathiasen removed the money, gave him 'two 20's and a ten,' and that he 'blew it in.' Later Dimler confessed to the police and accompanied them to the place where he said the wallet had been discarded. It was there.
Dimler acknowledged upon cross-examination that he had been previously convicted of several felonies including two convictions for assault and two for grand larceny in the first degree.
Defendant was found guilty by the jury of the crime of robbery in the third degree and was sentenced to 'be committed to and confined in the State Prison at Stillwater, Minnesota, until released therefrom by operation of law or act of the proper authorities.'
The question presented upon this review of the evidence is whether the testimony of the admitted accomplice, Dimler, has been 'corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense.' Minn.St. 634.04.
1. The general principles to be deduced from the Minnesota decisions 1 and other authorities 2 useful in resolving the problem are these:
( a) In Minnesota, as in most jurisdictions, a conviction cannot rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 3
( b) The corroborating testimony must link defendant to the crime alleged. The requirement is not satisfied by evidence which proves only that the crime was committed by someone. 4
( c) The connection between the defendant and the crime must be established by corroborating evidence which affirms the truth of the accomplice's testimony and points to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree; 5 however, it is not required that the corroborating evidence be adequate to establish a prima facie case. 6
( d) Sources of the corroborating testimony may include scientific analysis of physical objects connected with the alleged crime; 7 reported admissions by the accused; 8 suspicious and unexplained conduct of the accused either before or after 9 the offense. If the accused testifies, inadequacies in his testimony may be corroboative 10 of the assertions of the accomplice, but the failure to testify does not, in itself, provide the required evidentiary support. 11
( e) Relevant facts provable by evidence secured from such sources include participation in the preparation for the criminal act;[12: opportunity and motive;] [13 proximity of the defendant to the place where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clark, No. A06-1476.
...State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313, 63 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1954); accord Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5, 144 N.W.2d at 786; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398, 127 N.W.2d 534, 538 (1964). The precise "quantum of corroborative evidence needed necessarily depends on the circumstances of each case," bu......
-
State v. Mastrian
...State v. Eliason, 279 Minn. 70, 155 N.W.2d 465; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 101 N.W.2d 398. As summarized in State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 127 N.W.2d 534, the kinds of evidence which may supply needed corroboration include defendant's possession of instruments used in the commis......
-
State v. Azzone
...purpose and scope of § 634.03, see State v. Nordstrom, 146 Minn. 136, 178 N.W. 164. Compare with respect to § 634.04, State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 127 N.W.2d 534.5 A confession by the accused is adequate corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice. State v. Huebsch, 146 Minn. 34, ......
-
State v. Adams
...degree. The quantum of corroborative evidence needed necessarily depends on the circumstances of each case. State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 127 N.W.2d 534 (1964). Corroborating evidence may be circumstantial or direct. State v. Stave, 280 Minn. 269, 158 N.W.2d 848 If the accused testifie......