State v. Tuthill

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Tuthill

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

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided February 28, 1930·No. No. 27,846.·Published

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.

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

Pincite

229 N.W. 556 (State v. Tuthill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.