State v. Zenzen

227 N.W. 356, 178 Minn. 394, 1929 Minn. LEXIS 1198
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 1, 1929
DocketNo. 27,492.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 227 N.W. 356 (State v. Zenzen) 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. Zenzen, 227 N.W. 356, 178 Minn. 394, 1929 Minn. LEXIS 1198 (Mich. 1929).

Opinion

Wilson, C. J.

In this case a 16-year old girl was adjudged to be a delinquent child and she was ordered committed to the Hennepin County Home School for Girls until the further order of the court. The appeal is from an order denying a new trial. May a review be had by appeal ?

Juvenile delinquents are not criminals. Peterson v. McAuliffe, 151 Minn. 467, 187 N. W. 226; G. S. 1923, § 8636, as amended, 2 Mason, 1927, id. Proceedings involving juvenile delinquents are had pursuant to G. S. 1923, c. 73A, as amended, 2 Mason, 1927, id. which fails to provide for an appeal. The legislature did not give that right. Unless such right is given expressly or by implication, it does not exist. It is not an inherent right. The right of appeal was unknown to the common law. Perhaps the legislature did not consider an appeal necessary. In such a proceeding the state intervenes primarily in the interest of the child and secondarily in the interest of society. The act does not provide machinery, for guard *395 ing the interest of the child upon an appeal. We think the character of the proceeding and the language of the statute lead to the conclusion that there is no appeal. The authorities so hold. 31 C. J. 1109; Van Leuven v. Ingham Circuit Judge, 166 Mich. 115, 131 N. W. 531; Dinson v. Drosta, 39 Ind. App. 432, 80 N. E. 32; Marlowe v. Commonwealth, 142 Ky. 106, 133 S. W. 1137; State v. Bockman, 139 Tenn. 422, 201 S. W. 741; People v. Piccolo, 275 Ill. 453, 114 N. E. 145; Fowler v. Fowler, 24 Cal. App. 529, 141 P. 1053; Ex parte Bartee, 76 Tex. Cr. 285, 174 S. W. 1051; Cullins v. Williams, 156 Ky. 57, 160 S. W. 733. Certiorari may be available. State ex rel. Williams v. Juvenile Court, 163 Minn. 312, 204 N. W. 21. Habeas corpus may be available. Peterson v. McAuliffe, 151 Minn. 467, 187 N. W. 226.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

In Re the Welfare of C. W. S.
267 N.W.2d 496 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1978)
Stolp v. Scrimshaw
220 N.W.2d 811 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1974)
Appeal of O'Rourke
220 N.W.2d 811 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1974)
In Re Santillanes
138 P.2d 503 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1943)
Bringgold v. Bringgold
240 N.W. 120 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 N.W. 356, 178 Minn. 394, 1929 Minn. LEXIS 1198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zenzen-minn-1929.