State v. Marx
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury for the crime of grand larceny, tried in the district court for Le Sueur county before Tifft, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment and sentence to the state reformatory for an indeterminate period, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, J.
Defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree, and appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
*449It is contended by defendant on this appeal: (1) That the indictment did not state a public offense ; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict of guilty; (3) that there were prejudicial errors in rulings on the admission of evidence.
1. The indictment charged- that defendant, at the time and place specified, “did then and there, being in possession, custody and control as a bailee and a person authorized by agreement…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. MimsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Campbell v. AarstadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- State v. HoltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- State v. BarrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Murphy v. BackerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- State v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923