State v. Rogers

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Rogers

212 N.W. 864, 51 S.D. 179, 1927 S.D. LEXIS 176

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedApril 1, 1927

DocketFile No. 6207

StatusPublished

This text of 212 N.W. 864 (State v. Rogers) 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. Rogers, 212 N.W. 864, 51 S.D. 179, 1927 S.D. LEXIS 176 (S.D. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

'CAMPBELL, P. J.

Defendant was tried in the municipal court of the city of Sioux Ealls for- the crime of assault. He was [180]*180found guilty by a jury, and upon such verdict judgment was duly entered that he pay a fine of $100, from which judgment, and from the order denying his motion for new trial, defendant appeals.

Appellant’s sole contention in this court is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

The stories of the various witnesses were considerably in conflict. We have examined the record with care, and think no useful purpose would be served by setting out the testimony. It is sufficient to say that there is in the record testimony introduced by the state which, if believed by the jury, is ample to support the verdict. True, much of this testimony is disputed by defendant and his witnesses. But, the weight of testimony and credibility of the witnesses being peculiarly within the province of the jury, this court will not under such circumstances interfere with the verdict.

The judgment and order appealed from must be, and they are, affirmed.

POEUEY and BfUfRCH, JJ„ concur. GATES and SHERWOOD, JJ., not sitting.

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

'CAMPBELL, P. J.

Defendant was tried in the municipal court of the city of Sioux Ealls for- the crime of assault. He was [180]*180found guilty by a jury, and upon such verdict judgment was duly entered that he pay a fine of $100, from which judgment, and from the order denying his motion for new trial, defendant appeals.

Appellant’s sole contention in this court is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

The stories of the various witnesses were considerably in conflict. We have examined the record with care, and think no useful purpose would be served by setting out the testimony. It is sufficient to say that there is in the record testimony introduced by the state which, if believed by the jury, is ample to support the verdict. True, much of this testimony is disputed by defendant and his witnesses. But, the weight of testimony and credibility of the witnesses being peculiarly within the province of the jury, this court will not under such circumstances interfere with the verdict.

The judgment and order appealed from must be, and they are, affirmed.

POEUEY and BfUfRCH, JJ„ concur. GATES and SHERWOOD, JJ., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 N.W. 864, 51 S.D. 179, 1927 S.D. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rogers-sd-1927.