State v. Moses
| Decision Date | 09 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 22,706 |
| Citation | 186 N.W. 303,150 Minn. 470 |
| Parties | STATE v. WALTER E. MOSES |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Watonwan county charged with the crime of burglary, tried in the district court for that county before Comstock, J., and a jury and found guilty as charged in the indictment. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Reversed.
Criminal law -- corroboration of witness -- complainant's letter inadmissible.
In a criminal prosecution the state offered in evidence in corroboration of the testimony of the complaining witness a letter written by him two years before the trial, containing the statement of a fact upon a vital issue in the case, to the same effect as testified to by him on the trial. It is held that the admission of the letter was error; a witness cannot thus be corroborated.
Regan & Grogan, for appellant.
Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, and J. L. Lobben, County Attorney, for respondent.
The complainant, A. L. Kunz, resided upon a farm in Riverdale township, Watonwan county, this state, on May 17, 1919. He had 10 little pigs shut up in a horse barn on the premises weaning them from their mother. Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening of that day he went to the barn, saw the pigs, closed and latched the barn door to prevent them from getting out, then took his automobile to the house for his family for the purpose of going to Madelia. Daniel Laird, the hired man, was a tiler. He was in the machine shed at the time, changing his clothes, and when ready he got into the car and they immediately started for Madelia, returning about 11:30, when they found the barn door open, but they did not look to see whether or not the pigs were in the barn. On the following morning five of the pigs were missing. On May 19, 1919, Kunz wrote the letter Exhibit D, and mailed it to the sheriff of the county, informing him that five pigs had been taken from his barn on the Saturday night before. Nothing further was done until September, 1920, when defendant was accused of having in his possession for sale some stolen chickens. He confessed in this matter and paid a fine of $75 and costs. The defendant's age does not appear, but he was not living at home with his parents. His father and the deputy sheriff persuaded him to tell the truth about the chickens and to make a clean statement of all his misdeeds. He then admitted taking Kunz' pigs, a warrant was issued against him for petit larceny and he paid a fine of $75 and costs, his father paying Kunz $30 for the pigs. Thereafter an indictment was returned by the grand jury of Watonwan county, charging the defendant with burglary in the third degree committed by entering the barn referred to for the purpose of taking the pigs therefrom. The cause came on for trial at the May, 1921, term of the district court and a verdict of guilty was returned against the defendant. He moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, for errors of law occurring at the trial and upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The record is not in satisfactory shape. However, it clearly appears that the issue upon the trial resolved itself into one question, whether the defendant entered the barn at the time of taking the pigs on May 17, 1919. The prosecution relied almost entirely upon the statements of the defendant in proving a case against him. There was no direct testimony that he was near the barn on the night in question. He testified in his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial