State v. Barnes

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Barnes

168 N.W. 98, 140 Minn. 517, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 672

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 28, 1918

DocketNo. 20,906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 N.W. 98 (State v. Barnes) 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. Barnes, 168 N.W. 98, 140 Minn. 517, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 672 (Mich. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only question presented in this case is whether the evidence supports the verdict. The record has been examined with care with the result that we discover no sufficient reason for interference. A discussion, of the evi[518]*518dence will serve no useful purpose, if the testimony of the complainant is reliable and worthy of belief, questions for the trial court and jury, the verdict is amply supported. The trial judge has approved the verdict. The case is wholly unlike State v. Cowing, 99 Minn. 123, 127, 108 N. W. 851, and other similar cases. The evidence of complainant bears no earmarks of fabrication, and her state of mentality was for the court below.

No objection was made to any of the jurors summoned on the special venire, and the point made by defendant that the court below erred in discharging some of those on the regular panel is not presented by any proper exception of record.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The only question presented in this case is whether the evidence supports the verdict. The record has been examined with care with the result that we discover no sufficient reason for interference. A discussion, of the evi[518]*518dence will serve no useful purpose, if the testimony of the complainant is reliable and worthy of belief, questions for the trial court and jury, the verdict is amply supported. The trial judge has approved the verdict. The case is wholly unlike State v. Cowing, 99 Minn. 123, 127, 108 N. W. 851, and other similar cases. The evidence of complainant bears no earmarks of fabrication, and her state of mentality was for the court below.

No objection was made to any of the jurors summoned on the special venire, and the point made by defendant that the court below erred in discharging some of those on the regular panel is not presented by any proper exception of record.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W. 98, 140 Minn. 517, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barnes-minn-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack