holding non-accomplices’ testimony that established defendant’s connection to places where elements of conspiracy occurred was sufficient to corroborate accomplice’s testimony defendant was involved in the scheme
How later courts described this case
- holding non-accomplices’ testimony that established defendant’s connection to places where elements of conspiracy occurred was sufficient to corroborate accomplice’s testimony defendant was involved in the scheme
- illness and vacation of several judges and early rescheduling of trial of defendant out on bond constituted good cause
- “An accomplice is a person who willfully unites in, or is in some way concerned in the commission of a crime.”
- non-chronic "court congestion" arising out of unique, non-recurring events which result in only a short delay may constitute good cause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MASON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The State has the burden of establishing good cause for the delay in bringing defendant to trial. Since it did not sustain this burden, I would reverse. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 .
LeGRAND, J., joins in this dissent.