State v. Hughes

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Hughes

195 N.W. 635, 157 Minn. 503, 1923 Minn. LEXIS 926

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 9, 1923

DocketNo. 23,540

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 N.W. 635 (State v. Hughes) 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. Hughes, 195 N.W. 635, 157 Minn. 503, 1923 Minn. LEXIS 926 (Mich. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CURIAM.

Appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, based upon a settled case and affidavits alleging newly discovered evidence. The defendant was convicted of the offense of bank robbery and sentenced to the state prison on October 29, 1921. On October 10, 1922, he moved the court for a new trial which was denied. This was over 11 months after sentence and judgment of conviction was entered. It should have been made within the six-month period allowed for appeal from the judgment. No excuse for its not having been made within that period was offered or could avail. A transcript of the testimony was unnecessary, as the assignments of error need not be specified in criminal actions. The motion for a new trial was properly denied on the ground that it was made too late. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, §§ 7087, 7088; Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 302, 13 N. W. 129; Deering v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 97, 22 N. W. 174; State v. Johnson, 146 Minn. 468, 177 N. W. 657. The practice relating to new trials in criminal cases is the same as in civil. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 2489.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PEE CURIAM.

Appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, based upon a settled case and affidavits alleging newly discovered evidence. The defendant was convicted of the offense of bank robbery and sentenced to the state prison on October 29, 1921. On October 10, 1922, he moved the court for a new trial which was denied. This was over 11 months after sentence and judgment of conviction was entered. It should have been made within the six-month period allowed for appeal from the judgment. No excuse for its not having been made within that period was offered or could avail. A transcript of the testimony was unnecessary, as the assignments of error need not be specified in criminal actions. The motion for a new trial was properly denied on the ground that it was made too late. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, §§ 7087, 7088; Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 302, 13 N. W. 129; Deering v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 97, 22 N. W. 174; State v. Johnson, 146 Minn. 468, 177 N. W. 657. The practice relating to new trials in criminal cases is the same as in civil. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 2489.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 N.W. 635, 157 Minn. 503, 1923 Minn. LEXIS 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hughes-minn-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack