State v. Wagemann

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Wagemann

183 N.W. 112, 44 S.D. 186, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 71

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJune 2, 1921

DocketFile No. 4859

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 N.W. 112 (State v. Wagemann) 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. Wagemann, 183 N.W. 112, 44 S.D. 186, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 71 (S.D. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MoC'O'Y, J.

From a judgment of conviction of the crime of statutory rape and an order denying a new trial, the defendant appeals.

[1] The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not questioned. Motion for new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, was made based on affidavits tending to show that appellant was not at the home of complaining witness on September 20, 1919, the date when said offense was testified by the complaining witness as having been committed. No diligence to procure such testimony on the trial is shown. The alleged newlly discovered evidence is cumulative and is directly denied. The affidavits in denial of the statements contained in the moving affidavits, relating to the alleged newly discovered evidence, were properly admitted. State v. Southmayd, 37 S. D. 375, 158 N. W. [187]*187404. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in overruling the motion for new trial.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

PO'LLEY, P. J., not sitting.

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

MoC'O'Y, J.

From a judgment of conviction of the crime of statutory rape and an order denying a new trial, the defendant appeals.

[1] The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not questioned. Motion for new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, was made based on affidavits tending to show that appellant was not at the home of complaining witness on September 20, 1919, the date when said offense was testified by the complaining witness as having been committed. No diligence to procure such testimony on the trial is shown. The alleged newlly discovered evidence is cumulative and is directly denied. The affidavits in denial of the statements contained in the moving affidavits, relating to the alleged newly discovered evidence, were properly admitted. State v. Southmayd, 37 S. D. 375, 158 N. W. [187]*187404. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in overruling the motion for new trial.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

PO'LLEY, P. J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.W. 112, 44 S.D. 186, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wagemann-sd-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack