State v. Nellis

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Nellis

29 N.W. 459, 69 Iowa 548

DecidedOctober 14, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.W. 459 (State v. Nellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Nellis, 29 N.W. 459, 69 Iowa 548 (iowa 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Seevers, J.

Why this case is here we are at a loss to conceive. We have before us a transcript which contains the indictment, proceedings of the court during the trial, and a motion for a continuance filed by the state. We infer that the court directed the jury to find for the defendant because the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction. As the evidence is not before us, it is obvious we cannot say that the court erred. The motion was filed after the jury was sworn, and after evidence had been introduced on the part of the state. We have looked into the affidavit on which the motion is based, and we think the court rightly held that it was insufficient to entitle the state to a continuance, or to introduce the witness referred to in the affidavit, conceding that the state asked it to do so.

Affirmed.

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

Seevers, J.

Why this case is here we are at a loss to conceive. We have before us a transcript which contains the indictment, proceedings of the court during the trial, and a motion for a continuance filed by the state. We infer that the court directed the jury to find for the defendant because the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction. As the evidence is not before us, it is obvious we cannot say that the court erred. The motion was filed after the jury was sworn, and after evidence had been introduced on the part of the state. We have looked into the affidavit on which the motion is based, and we think the court rightly held that it was insufficient to entitle the state to a continuance, or to introduce the witness referred to in the affidavit, conceding that the state asked it to do so.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.W. 459, 69 Iowa 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nellis-iowa-1886.