Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1892PublishedCited by 6 opinions

BBOB to district court, Cass county; Hon. William B. McConnell, Judge. Prosecution against James Smith for an alleged burglary and grand larceny. Defendant was convicted, and he brings error.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Corliss, C. J.

The plaintiff in error demurred to the information on the , ground that it charged two distinct offenses. The demurrer was overruled, and the accused convicted. By this appeal the plaintiff in error challenges the legality of the information. No other point is made. That the information does charge two offenses cannot admit of doubt. It sets forth specifically and in detail all the facts necessary to establish the offense both of burglary and of grand larceny. These are two distinct offenses, although they both happen to be committed in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ben v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
  2. State v. Ridley & JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
  3. Farris v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
  4. People v. De CourseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Duncan v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Parks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1918
  3. State v. MarcksNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
  4. State v. BelyeaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
  5. State v. MattisonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API