State v. Tuthill

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Tuthill

229 N.W. 556, 179 Minn. 444, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1126

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 28, 1930

DocketNo. 27,846.

StatusPublished

This text of 229 N.W. 556 (State v. Tuthill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Tuthill, 229 N.W. 556, 179 Minn. 444, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1126 (Mich. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilson, C. J.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction of indecent exposure in violation of a city ordinance.

*445 There was no error in the court’s sustaining objections to two questions put to defendant by his counsel. The one objection was properly sustained because the question was leading. The other called for a conclusion, and while not technically leading its exclusion was harmless. The inquiry related to defendant’s intention to expose himself. His negative answer would not have added anything to his testimony, wherein his testimony if true negatived such intent.

The claim that the evidence does not support the- conviction is untenable. We do not see how the court could have reached a different conclusion.

Affirmed.

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

Wilson, C. J.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction of indecent exposure in violation of a city ordinance.

*445 There was no error in the court’s sustaining objections to two questions put to defendant by his counsel. The one objection was properly sustained because the question was leading. The other called for a conclusion, and while not technically leading its exclusion was harmless. The inquiry related to defendant’s intention to expose himself. His negative answer would not have added anything to his testimony, wherein his testimony if true negatived such intent.

The claim that the evidence does not support the- conviction is untenable. We do not see how the court could have reached a different conclusion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 N.W. 556, 179 Minn. 444, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tuthill-minn-1930.