State v. Glazer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Defendant was found guilty of selling an encumbered automobile without disclosing the encumbrance. He appeals from the order denying him a new trial.
The verdict is attacked as without support. We deem the attack groundless, but because of our conclusion that there must be another trial we refrain from discussing the evidence or pointing out the permissible inference therefrom.
The new trial is required because of misconduct of the assistant county attorney, Joseph T. Poirier, who conducted the prosecution. Against repeated rulings sustaining objections to improper questions put to defendant on…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- State v. MonroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- State v. AmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- State v. FournierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- State v. AbdoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. NorgaardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Hosford v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. SilversSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- State v. CurrieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- State v. ReillySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.