Court Opinion

ID: 9655891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:24:32.418575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:22.960083
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, Smith, and McCown, JJ.,
dissenting.
The conviction in this case rests upon evidence that the defendant was apprehended while riding in an automobile operated by Ruth Ann Duncan; the automobile had been used in the commission of a burglary a short time before; and the defendant had been in the company of Ruth Ann Duncan earlier that day. There is no other evidence to identify the defendant with the crime.
The case is complicated by the fact that the defendant and Ruth. Ann Duncan were tried jointly, and her confession, which implicated the defendant, was received in evidence. Unlike the defendant in State v. Hall, 176 Neb. 295. 125 N. W. 2d 918, the defendant in this case testified that he had no knowledge of the burglary and *160he has never confessed or admitted implication in the crime.
Although the defendant did not object to the admission of the Duncan confession as against him at the time it was offered and did not move for a severance or a mistrial on that ground, because of the particular circumstances in this case we are unable to say that the defendant received a fair trial. We believe the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.