State v. Hope
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
Defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license in violation of the Minneapolis intoxicating liquor ordinance, which provides among other things that “every person who shall violate” any of its provisions “shall upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment in the City Workhouse for ninety (90) days.”
Defendant makes two claims, first, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction, and, second, that the court erred in refusing to grant him a jury trial.
1. As to the first, the record is clear that the finding of guilt is well sustained. There is no error…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. MoilenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- State Ex Rel. Connolly v. ParksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- State v. JamiesonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- Walsh v. DahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- State v. IvesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nelson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- State v. StevensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Becker County National Bank v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942