State v. Parlin

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Parlin

269 N.W. 81, 64 S.D. 572, 1936 S.D. LEXIS 94

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 5, 1936

DocketFile No. 7920.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 N.W. 81 (State v. Parlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota 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. Parlin, 269 N.W. 81, 64 S.D. 572, 1936 S.D. LEXIS 94 (S.D. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER' CURIAM,

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The defendant was convicted of the crime of assault and battery in the county court of Hyde county, S. D. The judgment of conviction was entered! -by the trial court on June 8, 1935. The defendant presented no application for a new trial to the judge of the county court until the 4th day of November, 1935, and the application then presentedl was not made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Section 4946, R. C. 1919, provides as follows: “The application for a new trial must be made before judgment, but the court or judge thereof may, upon good cause shown, allow such application to be made at any time within thirty days after the entry of such judgment. And) motions for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made after judgment before the court or judge thereof, at any time before the next succeeding term, or at any time thereafter upon leave of court upon good cause shown.”

Construing the above statute, this court held in the case of State v. Holborn, 22 S. D. 425, 118 N. W. 704, that the above statute was exclusive, and that there was no law authorizing the circuit court to enlarge the statutory time in which an application for a new trail might be made in a criminal action. We are of the opinion that under the above statute the only power of the trial court to entertain an application in a criminal action for a new trial, not based on newly discovered evidence, is, as stated in the statute, either before judgment or within 30 days after the entry of judgment on good cause being shown.

The application in the present case was not made until almost 5 months after the entry of judgment, and it follows that *574 the appeal, in so far as it purports to be an appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, must be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

POLLEY, P. J., and CAMPBELL, WARREtN and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., not sitting.

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

PER' CURIAM,

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The defendant was convicted of the crime of assault and battery in the county court of Hyde county, S. D. The judgment of conviction was entered! -by the trial court on June 8, 1935. The defendant presented no application for a new trial to the judge of the county court until the 4th day of November, 1935, and the application then presentedl was not made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Section 4946, R. C. 1919, provides as follows: “The application for a new trial must be made before judgment, but the court or judge thereof may, upon good cause shown, allow such application to be made at any time within thirty days after the entry of such judgment. And) motions for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made after judgment before the court or judge thereof, at any time before the next succeeding term, or at any time thereafter upon leave of court upon good cause shown.”

Construing the above statute, this court held in the case of State v. Holborn, 22 S. D. 425, 118 N. W. 704, that the above statute was exclusive, and that there was no law authorizing the circuit court to enlarge the statutory time in which an application for a new trail might be made in a criminal action. We are of the opinion that under the above statute the only power of the trial court to entertain an application in a criminal action for a new trial, not based on newly discovered evidence, is, as stated in the statute, either before judgment or within 30 days after the entry of judgment on good cause being shown.

The application in the present case was not made until almost 5 months after the entry of judgment, and it follows that *574 the appeal, in so far as it purports to be an appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, must be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

POLLEY, P. J., and CAMPBELL, WARREtN and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 N.W. 81, 64 S.D. 572, 1936 S.D. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-parlin-sd-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack