Legal Opinion

State v. Whitman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 23, 1926No. 25,539PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of carnal knowledge. He appeals from the judgment, entered after his motion for a new trial was denied.

There are numerous assignments of error, most of which need not be considered in view of the conclusion that there must be a new trial for error in the instructions to the jury.

It is contended that the evidence is insufficient. For the reason just stated, it would serve no useful purpose to discuss or analyze the testimony. It is enough to point out that some misgiving as to the justice of the verdict arises from the fact that incidentally it appeared…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. SauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
  2. Lanz v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
  3. State v. NewmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  4. State v. KeehnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. BowersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  2. State v. BaileySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API