State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 21 December 1962
• Docket Number: No. 38038,38038
• Citation: State v. Smith, 264 Minn. 307, 119 N.W.2d 838 (Minn. 1962)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jacob Joseph SMITH, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 838

119 N.W.2d 838

264 Minn. 307

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v.Jacob Joseph SMITH, Appellant.

No. 38038.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 21, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Minn.St. 634.04, which requires the testimony of an accomplice to be bolstered by corroborating testimony, does not require a case to be made out against the person accused of a crime sufficient for his conviction before the testimony of an accomplice can be considered.Such corroborating evidence must, independent of the testimony of the accomplice, tend in some degree to establish the guilt of the accused, but it need not be sufficiently weighty standing alone to justify a conviction.

2.A confession involves the idea of criminality and applies to a direct or implied acknowledgment of guilt after an offense has been committed but not to admissions of fact which in themselves are innocent and involve no criminal intent.

3.To make a witness an accomplice it should appear that a crime has been committed, that the person on trial committed the crime either as principal or accessory, and that the witness cooperated with or assisted the defendant in the commission of that crime either as principal or accessory.

4.Whether a witness was an accomplice in the commission of the crime for which the defendant was on trial was a question for the jury.

5.An accomplice notwithstanding the turpitude of his conduct is not on that account an incompetent witness; such turpitude only goes to the credibility of his testimony.

6.Where an accomplice is a witness for the prosecution, the widest latitude of cross-examination should be permitted since there is always the temptation for the accomplice to testify falsely, and the jury is therefore entitled to know what, if any, inducements have been held out to him as a reward for his assistance to the prosecution and to know anything else that in any way affects his credibility.

7.Where the accused is accorded the fullest liberty of inquiry on cross-examination of a witness who may have been an accomplice, the state cannot be compelled to disclose to the jury what agreement, if any, it may have made with the witness in the absence of an offer of proof or the laying of a proper foundation for admission of testimony to that effect.

8.One whose wrongful act accelerates the death of another, or contributes to it, may be guilty of homicide even though other causes also contribute to the death.The physical condition of the victim at the time the act was done will not excuse or minimize its consequences if the causal connection between it and the death is made to appear.The actor is responsible for the consequences even where his acts were not the immediate cause of death if an intervening cause was the natural result of his wrongful acts; if the injury for which he is responsible is the cause of the cause, no more is required.

9.The court is not required to charge the jury in the exact language requested if the instruction as given correctly sets forth the applicable law.

Jerome M. Daly, Savage, for appellant.

Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol.Gen., St. Paul, William B. Randall, County Atty., John B. Frank, Assistant County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

NELSON, Justice.

The grand jury of Ramsey County returned an indictment charging defendant, Jacob Joseph Smith, and Richard Robert Mitchell and Richard Thomas McCarty with having committed the crime of murder in the third degree contrary to Minn.St. 619.10.¹The indictment alleged that the act took place on August 12, 1959, and that the victim, Gordon Knopic, died on August 16, the result of an attempt to commit robbery in the first degree.

Defendant was tried separately and a jury verdict of guilty was returned.Thereafter he moved that the verdict be set aside and the indictment dismissed or a new trial be granted.He appeals from an order denying that motion.

The settled case consists of a synopsis of the testimony of 42 witnesses and a verbatim transcript of the testimony of McCarty and of the medical witnesses, which reveal the following facts: On the evening of August 11, 1959, defendant together with Mitchell, McCarty, and one Lawrence Liebgott happened to meet in Duane's Lounge, a tavern in St. Paul.McCarty at the time was looking for one Richard Stone who owed him $4.Since Stone was not there, Liebgott suggested that they go to another bar where they might find him.The four men then went to Triviski's Bar where they stayed a short time.About 11 o'clock they arrived at Harry Unise's bar on Rice Street near University Avenue.Upon entering, they took places at the bar.Gordon Knopic, dressed in green, uniform-type clothing, was at the bar.McCarty testified that Liebgott went to the far end of the bar to talk with an acquaintance and Mitchell stood at the bar near Knopic.McCarty testified that Mitchell, having seen Knopic cash a check, said that he'was going to get him.'Mitchell left the bar, and about a half hour later, Knopic left, followed by defendant.McCarty testified that he finished his drink, which took 3 or 4 minutes, and left the bar with the intention of going home.

McCarty stated that upon reaching the street he looked to his right and saw Smith running around the corner of the Johnson Liquor Store, which is about one-half block north of the Unise bar; that he ran after Smith to see what was happening; and that upon reaching the corner of the liquor store he saw Smith pulling a man out of the only car in the parking lot adjacent to the liquor store.The testimony shows that that man was Gordon Knopic and that the automobile was his.McCarty then testified:

'* * * The man Smith was pulling out of the car was dressed in green; Smith opened the door and pulled him out of the car and hit him and knocked him down; I think he hit the man in the head.The guy in the green pants I think opened the door first, and Smith pulled him out; the man was just getting into the car; from where I was standing I could not hear anything being said by either one of them.I think Smith only hit the man twice.I walked up behind Smith to see what he was going to do.I was going to try to stop him, and then Mitchell came running across the street * * * and into the parking lot; * * * without saying anything to anyone, Mitchell kicked the fellow in the head * * * Mitchell was running on a dead run and he kicked him on the run just like you would kick a football.* * * I did not touch the man at all.I hollered at him to leave him alone, and I hollered at Mitchell--he kicked him a couple of times, and I said, 'For God's sake, you're going to kill the guy."

A woman living in an apartment nearby saw the scuffle and began screaming for the police.Six occupants of a car being driven past the parking lot also saw the attack take place and stopped to assist Knopic.McCarty testified that defendant, Mitchell, and he then ran from the scene and reentered the Unise bar through the back door.When they entered the bar, Liebgott was there.McCarty stated that Liebgott then asked defendant if 'he got any money off of that guy.'Both defendant and Mitchell said that they had not.McCarty stated that Liebgott then threatened him that 'if I said anything he'd get me for it.'

In the meantime the police had been called and upon their arrival found Knopic sitting on the curb, to which he had been helped by some of the witnesses of the attack.His face was badly beaten, and he was bleeding profusely from the nose and mouth.He was taken by ambulance to Ancker Hospital, where he died on August 16, 1959.

Upon initial examination it was impossible to determine the extent of Knopic's injuries because of the extremely swollen condition of his face, his eyes being so swollen that they could not be opened at all.Blood transfusions were given and X rays taken which indicated a fractured nose; a fracture of the right jaw; a fracture of the left infraorbital ridge, which is a fracture of the bone immediately below the right eye; and rib fractures on the right side of the chest.

Dr. John Brainard, a surgery resident at Ancker Hospital, saw Knopic and testified that he was disoriented and confused, indicating something amiss in his central nervous system whih Dr. Brainard suggested might be delirium tremens.In explanation, he stated:

'* * * Delirium tremens is a mental state of confusion and disorientation with hallucinations and gross tremor of the extremities.It is usually associated with alcoholic poisoning.Delirium tremens is not the result of only alcoholism and can be caused by other things, but it is usually caused by alcoholism.'

Dr. Brainard also stated that delirium tremens may result from cirrhosis of the liver, from arteriosclerosis, or from an acute inflammation of the brain.

Dr. William D. Smith, an intern at the hospital, testified that Knopic had fallen out of bed at approximately 11:30 on the night of August 14 and that the witness then conducted a routine neurological examination and determined that Knopic had sustained no further injuries as a result of this fall.

Dr. Frank W. Van De Water testified that he had Knopic under his care during his confinement in the hospital.On the death certificate, which he signed, the immediate cause of death is diagnosed as delirium tremens brought on by chronic alcoholism.'Cirrhosis of the liver; Head trauma including fractured maxilla, mandible, nasal bones; Chest trauma, fractured ribs 6, 7, 8 right' were also listed as other significant conditions contributing to death but not related to the immediate cause.

1--2.Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for dismissal at the close of the testimony on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.He claims that McCarty was an accomplice and that his testimony and a statement given by him to the police, which was admitted...