State v. Wagner

23 Minn. 544, 1877 Minn. LEXIS 66
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Berry, J.

1. “When the evidence is concluded upon the trial of any indictment, in the district courts or courts of common pleas in this state, * * * the defendant shall conclude the argument to the jury,” Laws 1875, c. LL, § I-

[545]*545This provision relates to the trial of indictments only. It cannot be made applicable to the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, under Sp. Laws 1874, c. 141, § 12, because the proceeding by indictment is there Unknown.

2. Notwithstanding the defendant’s claim to the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the case reasonably tending to sustain and justify the verdict.

3. The motion for a new trial, on account of newly-discovered evidence, was properly denied, since the evidence is all either impeaching, cumulative, or corroborative, or it is not shown that due diligence was used to procure it. State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438; Mead v. Constans, 5 Minn. 171 ; Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 140.

Judgment affirmed.

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

State v. Wagner, 23 Minn. 544, 1877 Minn. LEXIS 66 (Mich. 1877).

23 Minn. 544 (State v. Wagner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Cantieny
24 N.W. 458 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1885)