State v. Percansky

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Percansky

212 N.W. 7, 170 Minn. 518, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1480

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided February 4, 1927·No. No. 25,842.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After conviction of disorderly conduct, defendants appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial.

The conviction is challenged only upon the ground that it is not sustained by the evidence. Our examination of the record convinces us that the appeal is without merit. The evidence for- the prosecution, much of it from disinterested witnesses, is ample to sustain the conviction. The evidence contra comes from defendants alone. It did not appeal to the trial judge, nor does it to us.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After conviction of disorderly conduct, defendants appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial.

The conviction is challenged only upon the ground that it is not sustained by the evidence. Our examination of the record convinces us that the appeal is without merit. The evidence for- the prosecution, much of it from disinterested witnesses, is ample to sustain the conviction. The evidence contra comes from defendants alone. It did not appeal to the trial judge, nor does it to us.

Order affirmed.

State v. Percansky, 212 N.W. 7, 170 Minn. 518, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1480 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

212 N.W. 7 (State v. Percansky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.