Legal Opinion

State v. Brooks

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 7, 1922No. 22,730PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

The defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit the crime of swindling and appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The crime of swindling is defined by G. S. 1913, § 8737, so far as now material, as follows:

“Every person who, by means of three-card monte, so called, or of any other form or device, sleight of hand, or other means, by use of cards or instruments of like character, or by any other instrument, trick, or device, obtains from another-person any money or other property of any description, shall be deemed guilty of the crime of swindling.”

The jury could have…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
  2. State v. WassingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  3. State v. BriggsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
  4. State v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
  5. State v. GraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. PoelaertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  2. State v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
  3. State v. YurkiewiczSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API