State v. Dahl
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Norman county charged with the crime of carnal knowledge of a female child of 15 years, tried in the district court for that county before Grinde-land, J., and a jury which found him guilty as charged in the. indictment. From an order denying his motion for; a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
Defendant has appealed from an order denying a motion for a new trial and from judgment after his conviction of the crime of having carnal knowledge of a girl 15 years of age. Three grounds are relied upon for a reversal: (1) That the prosecutrix and the defendant were both guilty of the crime of fornication, as defined by chapter 193, p. 195, Laws 1919, and were therefore accomplices, and defendant could not be convicted on the girl’s testimony without the corroboration required by section 8463, G. S. 1913; (2) that the court erred in excluding testimony of criminal acts on the part…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. DurnamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- State v. GordonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- State v. McPaddenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. Kraus, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- State v. LightheartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- State v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- In Re Estate of HoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- State v. MarudasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.