State v. Durnam
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was convicted in the district court for Hennepin county of the crime of asking for a bribe to influence his vote and action as an alderman of the city of Minneapolis. From an order, Elliott, J., denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appealed. On the hearing of the motion for a new trial defendant read affidavits to the effect that, while the jury were deliberating, certain jurors left the room and went upon the floor above in the court house.
Read the full summary
Defendant was convicted in the district court for Hennepin county of the crime of asking for a bribe to influence his vote and action as an alderman of the city of Minneapolis. From an order, Elliott, J., denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appealed. On the hearing of the motion for a new trial defendant read affidavits to the effect that, while the jury were deliberating, certain jurors left the room and went upon the floor above in the court house. The state read affidavits showing that directly above the jury room there is a sleeping room, bath room and closets for the use of…
1Opinion of the Court
MITCHELL, J.1
The defendant was indicted under section 65 of the Penal Code (G. S. 1894, § 6849) for having asked for a bribe from one Charles H. Richards, as a member of the firm of Halvorson, Richards & Co.,
“Upon the understanding and agreement that his, the said George H. Durnam’s, official vote and action as a member of said city council [of Minneapolis], as aforesaid, should be influenced thereby in the following manner, to wit, in favor of the acceptance by the said city council of a certain bid theretofore duly submitted and proposed by the said Halvorson, Richards & Company to said…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kohl v. LehlbackSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Chase v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- People v. SquiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- State v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- Commonwealth v. MurrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- People v. CoffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Egan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- State v. SweeneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- State v. WappensteinWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- Sustar v. County CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1921
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.