6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smudagreen1 sentence2016“If the trial error is one of constitutional magnitude, we must determine whether or not 'the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by considering the probable effect of the error in light' of all the evidence.” Kelley, 450 N.W.2d at 732 (citing State v. Smuda, 419 N.W.2d 166, 168 (N.D.1988)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thorsongreen1 sentence2015“Only after the court has found such corroborative evidence is it allowed to leave the question of the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence to the jury.” State v. Thorson, 264 N.W.2d 441, 445 (N.D.1978). [¶ 9] This Court has set standards for applying the corroboration requirement: Any amount of corroboration is sufficient to give the case to the jury to determine the sufficiency of the corroboration .... | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zimmermangreen1 sentence2000State v. Esparza, 1998 ND 13, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 203 ; State v. Zimmerman, 524 N.W.2d 111, 114 (N.D.1994). [¶ 17] We have set forth standards for applying the requirement: It is the trial court’s duty to first determine, as a matter of law, whether there is any evidence corroborating the testimony of the accomplice. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marshallgreen1 sentence1997As we explained in State v. Marshall, 531 N.W.2d 284, 288 (N.D.1995), the corroboration requirement is met when some other material facts tend to connect the accused with the crime. [¶39] Guerrero identified Garcia as the person who left from and returned to the Ford with the sawed-off shotgun. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haugengreen1 sentence1990CORROBORATION OF ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY Burgard asserts that he was improperly convicted of delivery of a controlled substance because the only evidence supporting the conviction is the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Rosemore. 2 Section 29-21-14, N.D.C.C., requires such corroboration: “Testimony of accomplice — Corrobora tion required. — A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kelley
green
2 sentences2016“If the trial error is one of constitutional magnitude, we must determine whether or not 'the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by considering the probable effect of the error in light' of all the evidence.” Kelley, 450 N.W.2d at 732 (citing State v. Smuda, 419 N.W.2d 166, 168 (N.D.1988)). 2007Id. at 733-34 . [¶ 15] Here, we conclude the error, if any, in not giving a corroboration instruction was harmless because there was sufficient evidence that is corroborative of Fruge’s testimony. | 2 | 2007–2016 |
State v. Esparza
green
1 sentence2000State v. Esparza, 1998 ND 13, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 203 ; State v. Zimmerman, 524 N.W.2d 111, 114 (N.D.1994). [¶ 17] We have set forth standards for applying the requirement: It is the trial court’s duty to first determine, as a matter of law, whether there is any evidence corroborating the testimony of the accomplice. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Esparza
green
1 sentence2000State v. Esparza, 1998 ND 13, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 203 ; State v. Zimmerman, 524 N.W.2d 111, 114 (N.D.1994). [¶ 17] We have set forth standards for applying the requirement: It is the trial court’s duty to first determine, as a matter of law, whether there is any evidence corroborating the testimony of the accomplice. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.