196 P.2d 407 (1948)
The State argued that defendant lured a young man who was enamoured with her into killing her husband by striking him with a wrench and shooting him, thus rendering defendant guilty of murder as a principal under Or. Comp. Laws Ann. § 23-207.
- Affirming defendant's conviction, the court held the following:
- (1) the young man was competent under the common law and Or. Comp. Laws Ann. § 3-102 to testify against defendant because they were indicted separately and neither Or. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 26-924, -925 applied to render him incompetent as they were not joint indictees;
- (2) defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on a district attorney's opening remarks referring to proof in certain letters because he had good cause to believe the letters would be admitted under the best evidence rule;
- (3) defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on the ground that the young man's testimony against her was uncorroborated because several groups of facts corroborated his testimony, including evidence underlying their relationship, preparation for the crime, and fabrication and destruction of evidence.
The court affirmed the judgment.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law