State v. Panetti
| Decision Date | 17 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 31740.,31740. |
| Parties | STATE v. PANETTI. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; James E. Montague, Judge.
P. J. Panetti was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals.
New trial granted.
George Hagen, of Crookston, for appellant.
Wm. S. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Roy C. Frank, Asst. Atty. Gen., and F. H. Stadsvold, Co. Atty., of Crookston, for the State.
Defendant was convicted of sodomy committed in his apartment at Crookston, Minnesota, upon one Allen, 16 years old. Allen became acquainted with defendant through the youth Arthur, 19 years of age. Arthur was a witness for the state and testified that he had visited defendant's apartment one evening where he had been treated to beer. He saw defendant the following Monday evening, August 11, 1936, when defendant asked him where his friend Allen was, and requested Arthur to find him, and that they meet defendant at a certain place, where he would come for them and take them to Grand Forks; that Arthur did as requested and brought Allen to the appointed place; that shortly defendant came there with his car, they got in and defendant drove to Grand Forks; that defendant had liquor which they consumed on the way; that they stopped at a pool hall in Grand Forks, had lunch and beer there at defendant's expense; that he furnished Arthur with 25 cents in order that the boys might play pool while defendant was elsewhere; that he came for them as agreed and drove back to Crookston; that the boys were let out of the car in front of the Independent Store, two blocks from defendant's apartment, and told to walk from there; that during the whole trip, and especially in Crookston, particular pains were taken by defendant to avoid being seen in company with or talking to the boys; that the boys came up to the apartment as told; that after some more drinking defendant committed the offense charged with Allen, then with Arthur, both acts being committed in the presence of the three. On cross-examination Arthur testified thus:
This is enough of a statement of the circumstances of the crime to show the point upon which our decision must rest.
The court properly instructed the jury that: "A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." Mason's Minn.St.1927, § 9903. The jury were also charged that Allen was an accomplice, and this correctly, for he voluntarily participated in the offense. The court refused to allow the jury to determine whether or not Arthur was an accomplice, but directly charged the jury that he was not an accomplice as a matter of law, and hence his testimony, if found true, supplied the necessary corroboration of the testimony of Allen, the accomplice. Defendant excepted. In State v. Farris, 189 Iowa 505, 178 N.W. 361, the statute as to the testimony of an accomplice being the same as our section 9903, the court held that under the Iowa Code permitting all persons concerned in the commission of a public offense to be indicted as principals (178 N.W. 361) "one who was present by previous agreement with the accessory to sodomy for the purpose of himself committing a similar offense at same time with one of the parties, is an `accomplice.'" It appears to us, contrary to the assertion of the state, that the facts there are so similar to those here present that the two cases cannot be differentiated. To be sure, the offense...
To continue reading
Request your trial