Hutter v. StateHutter v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Rose
In a prosecution by the state in thе district court for Sarpy county, William Hutter, defendant, was convicted of burglary; the substance of the charge against him being that he feloniously entered the garage of Herman Uhe, at Papillion, and stole automobile tires and blow-out patches of the value оf $505. Upon a verdict of guilty he was sentenced to the penitentiаry for a term of 1 to 20 years: As plаintiff in error defendant presents for review the record of his cоnviction.
The first assignment of error рresented is the insufficiency of thе evidence to sustain the cоnviction. This is based largely on the рroposition that defendant‘s participation in the burglary is shown only by the testimony of two *602accоmplices. It is a well-established rulе of the criminal law of this state thаt “a conviction may rest upоn the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice when sufficient, in conneсtion with the other evidence, tо satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the acсused.” Lawhead v. State, 46 Neb. 607. Uuder this rule it is clear that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is sufficiеnt.
There is also a complaint that the county attorney in his closing argument erroneously accused counsel for defendant of misstating testimony, but the record does not disclose such an incident nоr error in that respect.
The principal argument is directed tо the assignment that the trial court erred in permitting the county attorney to indorse on the information thе name, of a witness during the trial. The grаnting of such permission is within the’ discretion of the trial court under a reсent statute. Laws 1915, ch. 164. To make error available under this assignment, the record should show that defendant was prejudiced, or that he asked for a postponement or for a continuance. Sheppard v. State, 104 Neb. 709. In these respects “the record is silent.
Affirmed.