State v. Miller
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Herman Miller was convicted in the district court for Hennepin county upon an indictment charging an attempt to commit grand larceny. On the trial defendant objected that the facts alleged in the indictment did not constitute a crime and were not sufficiently definite to inform him of the nature of the crime charged. The objection was oyerruled by John Day Smith, J., who at the request of the defendant certified to this court the questions enumerated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The defendant was indicted in the district court of the county of Hennepin for an attempt to commit the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty as alleged in the indictment. Thereupon the trial pourt, pursuant to R. L. 1905, certified to this court three questions:
“First. Are the facts alleged in the indictment in the above-entitled action sufficient to constitute a public offense?
“Second. Are the facts alleged in the indictment sufficient to constitute the crime of an attempt to commit grand larceny in the second degree ?
“Third. Are…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. DumasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- State v. WardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- State v. MarshallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923