Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
  • Tyler Christensen and J.H. Andersen, for Appellants. The appellate court cannot and will not shift the responsibility to the jury, but will examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not the verdict is supported by the evidence. ( State v. Nesbit, 4 Idaho 548, 43 P. 66; State v. Jones, 25 Idaho 587, 138 P. 1116; State v. Trego, 25 Idaho 625, 138 P. 1124; State v. Donnington, 246 Mo. 343, 151 S.W. 975; State v. Baker, 6 Idaho 496, 56 P. 81; State v. Anderson, 6 Idaho 706, 59 P. 180.) If the proof fails to establish either of the elements of the crime necessary to constitute the crime charged, the verdict and judgment of conviction thereon will be set aside. ( State v. Sullivan, 34 Idaho 68, 17 A.L.R. 902, 199 P. 647; State v. Crawford, 59 Utah, 39, 201 P. 1030; Russell v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 587, 219 S.W. 835.) W.D. Gillis, Attorney General, Fred J. Babcock, Assistant Attorney General, and Z. Reed Millar, Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent. A verdict supported by sufficient evidence or substantially supported by evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. ( State v. Williams, 12 Idaho 483, 86 P. 53; State v. Levy, 9 Idaho 483, 75 P. 227; State v. Abbott, 38 Idaho 61, 213 Pac. 1024, 224 P. 791; State v. Starcher, 39 Idaho 327, 227 Pac. 386; State v. Bariger, 39 Idaho 328, 227 P. 34; State v. Smith, 30 Idaho 337, 164 P. 519; State v. Mox Mox, 28 Idaho 176, 152 P. 802; State v. McLennan, 40 Idaho 286, 231 Pac. 718; State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 203, 232 P. 1.)
Judges
  • WM. E. LEE, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
  • Tyler Christensen and J.H. Andersen, for Appellants. The appellate court cannot and will not shift the responsibility to the jury, but will examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not the verdict is supported by the evidence. ( State v. Nesbit, 4 Idaho 548, 43 P. 66; State v. Jones, 25 Idaho 587, 138 P. 1116; State v. Trego, 25 Idaho 625, 138 P. 1124; State v. Donnington, 246 Mo. 343, 151 S.W. 975; State v. Baker, 6 Idaho 496, 56 P. 81; State v. Anderson, 6 Idaho 706, 59 P. 180.) If the proof fails to establish either of the elements of the crime necessary to constitute the crime charged, the verdict and judgment of conviction thereon will be set aside. ( State v. Sullivan, 34 Idaho 68, 17 A.L.R. 902, 199 P. 647; State v. Crawford, 59 Utah, 39, 201 P. 1030; Russell v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 587, 219 S.W. 835.) W.D. Gillis, Attorney General, Fred J. Babcock, Assistant Attorney General, and Z. Reed Millar, Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent. A verdict supported by sufficient evidence or substantially supported by evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. ( State v. Williams, 12 Idaho 483, 86 P. 53; State v. Levy, 9 Idaho 483, 75 P. 227; State v. Abbott, 38 Idaho 61, 213 Pac. 1024, 224 P. 791; State v. Starcher, 39 Idaho 327, 227 Pac. 386; State v. Bariger, 39 Idaho 328, 227 P. 34; State v. Smith, 30 Idaho 337, 164 P. 519; State v. Mox Mox, 28 Idaho 176, 152 P. 802; State v. McLennan, 40 Idaho 286, 231 Pac. 718; State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 203, 232 P. 1.)
Judges
  • WM. E. LEE, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

STATE, Respondent, v. JOHN DREW and EARLMANION, Appellants.

WM. E. LEE, J.

John Drew and Earl Manion, together with William Hammond, were convicted of burglary in the first degree, and Drew and Manion have appealed. The evidence is manifestly insufficient to sustain the verdict. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the case remanded.

Budge, C.J., and Givens, T. Bailey Lee and Varian, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

STATE v. DREW
(Sep 3, 1929)