State v. Atanosoff

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Atanosoff

164 N.W. 1011, 138 Minn. 321, 1917 Minn. LEXIS 917

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 16, 1917

DocketNo. 20,546

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 164 N.W. 1011 (State v. Atanosoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Atanosoff, 164 N.W. 1011, 138 Minn. 321, 1917 Minn. LEXIS 917 (Mich. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Dibell, C.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and appeals from the order denying his motion to settle a ease and his motion for a new trial.

1. There is no settled case nor bill of exceptions. The court denied [322]*322the defendant’s motion to settle his proposed case. The order denying the motion is not appealable nor is it reviewable on the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial. Mandamus is the remedy. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 1383, et seq; Richards on v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 461, 35 N. W. 270; Schumann v. Mark, 35 Minn. 379, 28 N. W. 927; State v. MacDonald, 30 Minn. 98, 14 N.W. 459; State v. Cox, 26 Minn. 214, 2 N. W. 494.

2. In the absence of a certification under the statute, or a bill of exceptions or settled case, a ruling on a challenge to the grand jury cannot be reviewed; nor without a ease or bill of exceptions can rulings at the trial or the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict be considered. See G. S. 1913, § 9251; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. & 1916 Supp. §§ 342-350, 1368, 1369, 2493, and cases cited. This is the character of the objections-urged by the appellant.

So far as the appeal is directed to the order denying the defendant’s motion to settle a case it is dismissed. So far as the order denies a new trial it is affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dibell, C.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and appeals from the order denying his motion to settle a ease and his motion for a new trial.

1. There is no settled case nor bill of exceptions. The court denied [322]*322the defendant’s motion to settle his proposed case. The order denying the motion is not appealable nor is it reviewable on the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial. Mandamus is the remedy. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 1383, et seq; Richards on v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 461, 35 N. W. 270; Schumann v. Mark, 35 Minn. 379, 28 N. W. 927; State v. MacDonald, 30 Minn. 98, 14 N.W. 459; State v. Cox, 26 Minn. 214, 2 N. W. 494.

2. In the absence of a certification under the statute, or a bill of exceptions or settled case, a ruling on a challenge to the grand jury cannot be reviewed; nor without a ease or bill of exceptions can rulings at the trial or the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict be considered. See G. S. 1913, § 9251; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. & 1916 Supp. §§ 342-350, 1368, 1369, 2493, and cases cited. This is the character of the objections-urged by the appellant.

So far as the appeal is directed to the order denying the defendant’s motion to settle a case it is dismissed. So far as the order denies a new trial it is affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.W. 1011, 138 Minn. 321, 1917 Minn. LEXIS 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-atanosoff-minn-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack