State v. Nicks

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Nicks

332 P.2d 906, 134 Mont. 599, 1958 Mont. LEXIS 34

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1958

DocketNos. 9723, 9894

StatusPublished

This text of 332 P.2d 906 (State v. Nicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Nicks, 332 P.2d 906, 134 Mont. 599, 1958 Mont. LEXIS 34 (Mo. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:

Defendant was convicted of tbe crime of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a minor child. His motion for new trial was denied after this court ruled that a motion for new trial could be filed and heard under recanting testimony developed after the trial. State v. Nicks, 131 Mont. 567, 312 Pac. (2d) 519. He has appealed from the order denying the motion.

Since this court has remanded the cause for retrial upon other grounds in an opinion this day filed, 332 Pac. (2d) 904, the propriety of the ruling on the motion for new trial because of the recanting testimony becomes immaterial and this appeal is accordingly dismissed.

MR. JUSTICES ADAIR and BOTTOMLY, concur. [600]*600MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, did not participate in this opinion. MR. JUSTICE CASTLES, dissents.

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

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:

Defendant was convicted of tbe crime of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a minor child. His motion for new trial was denied after this court ruled that a motion for new trial could be filed and heard under recanting testimony developed after the trial. State v. Nicks, 131 Mont. 567, 312 Pac. (2d) 519. He has appealed from the order denying the motion.

Since this court has remanded the cause for retrial upon other grounds in an opinion this day filed, 332 Pac. (2d) 904, the propriety of the ruling on the motion for new trial because of the recanting testimony becomes immaterial and this appeal is accordingly dismissed.

MR. JUSTICES ADAIR and BOTTOMLY, concur. [600]*600MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, did not participate in this opinion. MR. JUSTICE CASTLES, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 P.2d 906, 134 Mont. 599, 1958 Mont. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nicks-mont-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack