State v. Heintz
South Dakota Supreme Court
The defendant, John Heintz, was convicted of the offense of shooting with intent to kill, and he appeals. (i) To point one of the-opinion, Appellant cited: Williams v. .State, 12 Texas 395; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Raw (9th Ed.) Sec. 641; Secs. 4051, 4012 Code 1919; People v. Pine, 53 Cal. 263. Respondent cited: State v. Otto, (S. D.) 161 N. W. 340; State v. Stewart, 37 6. D. 263, 137 N. W. 1046; ’State v. Morse, 35 'S. D. 18, 150 N: W. 293. (3) To point three, Appellant cited:…
Read the full summary
The defendant, John Heintz, was convicted of the offense of shooting with intent to kill, and he appeals. (i) To point one of the-opinion, Appellant cited: Williams v. .State, 12 Texas 395; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Raw (9th Ed.) Sec. 641; Secs. 4051, 4012 Code 1919; People v. Pine, 53 Cal. 263. Respondent cited: State v. Otto, (S. D.) 161 N. W. 340; State v. Stewart, 37 6. D. 263, 137 N. W. 1046; ’State v. Morse, 35 'S. D. 18, 150 N: W. 293. (3) To point three, Appellant cited: Secs. 5287, 5293, 5294, Code 1919. Respondent cited: Sec. 4841, 4660, Code 1919. (4) To point four, Respondent cited: 16…
1Opinion of the CourtGates, J.
Defendant was convicted of the offense of shooting with intent to kill Oluf C. Karp, then sheriff of Turner county, in violation of section 4051, Rev. Code 1919. From the judgment and an order .denying a new trial he appeals.
[1] The first point considered by appellant is the sufficiency of the information. He urges that the information did not disclose the nature or cause of the accusation against him, in violation of Const, art. 6, § 7, and that he has therefore been denied due process of law. Const, art. 6, § 2. The pertinent clauses of the information are (after giving date and place) that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. KapelinoSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- State v. HalpinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. LeonardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930