## Facts

- Virgil Helmenstein was charged by information in Oliver County, North Dakota, with burglarizing a grocery store in Hannover, North Dakota.
- Two groups of young people met in Center, North Dakota, obtained beer, drank, and then rode around together in Helmenstein’s car.
- During the ride, someone suggested driving to Hannover and breaking into the store; one person said she wanted bananas, and another expressed interest in getting other store items.
- The group drove to Hannover and parked some distance from the store.
- Three members of the group, including Helmenstein, went to the store, broke in, and returned carrying stolen items, including beer, cigarettes, candy, and bananas.
- On the return trip, the group agreed on a false story to tell law enforcement if questioned.
- Back in Center, the group divided the stolen goods and separated.
- Helmenstein waived a jury trial and was tried to the court.
- At trial, members of the group testified for the State and implicated Helmenstein in the planning and commission of the burglary.
- Glen Zahn, a rider in the car, testified that he objected to the burglary and fell asleep in the car while it occurred, but he was present for the plan and participated in the later agreement on what to tell authorities.
- The store owner was the only non-group witness; he testified that the store had been burglarized and about $130 in merchandise was missing, but his testimony did not identify Helmenstein as a participant.
- The trial court found Helmenstein guilty. The court denied his motion for a new trial, and Helmenstein appealed from both the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a burglary conviction may stand when the only evidence tending to connect the defendant to the offense is testimony from accomplices, without independent corroboration as required by North Dakota law.
2. Whether Glen Zahn was an “accomplice” for corroboration purposes despite claiming he did not enter the store and slept during the break-in.
3. Whether the trial court’s refusal to sequester the State’s witnesses required reversal, where the appeal could be resolved on the corroboration/sufficiency ground.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and reversed the order denying a new trial.
- The court held that the witnesses whose testimony implicated Helmenstein were accomplices, including Zahn.
- The court concluded there was no evidence, apart from accomplice testimony, that tended to connect Helmenstein with the burglary.
- The store owner’s testimony showed only that a burglary occurred and merchandise was missing; it did not provide the required corroboration connecting Helmenstein to the crime.
- Because the statutory corroboration requirement was not satisfied, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction may not be based on accomplice testimony unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.
- Corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows that the offense was committed or describes the circumstances of the offense; it must tend to connect the defendant to the crime.
- An accomplice is a person who could be charged with the same offense, such as a principal or an accessory before the fact.
- A person may be treated as an accomplice based on participation in a common plan or scheme surrounding the offense, including joining in an agreement to conceal the crime or mislead authorities.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed Helmenstein’s burglary conviction because every witness who connected him to the break-in was an accomplice, and the only non-accomplice proof—the store owner’s testimony—established only that a burglary occurred, not that Helmenstein committed it, leaving the State without the independent corroboration required by statute.


State v. Helmenstein, 163 N.W.2d 85 (1968)