State v. Newman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Dakota county, Crosby, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and conviction of the crime stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
START C. J.
The defendant was convicted in the district court of the county of Dakota of the crime of carnally knowing a female child more than ten and under fourteen years of age. He was sentenced to the State Pris*394on on the reformatory plan. This is an appeal from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The first alleged error urged on behalf of the defendant is to the effect that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence, in that there was no proof of penetration — an essential element of the completed offense with which the defendant was charged. Any sexual penetration, however…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. MoreyOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- State v. SauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Burt v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1894
- State v. RollinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Kurstelska v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
3Cited by10 opinions
- Owens v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1947
- Rupley v. FraserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- State v. BowersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- State v. TrockeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.