Legal Opinion

State v. Rasmusson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 15, 1924No. 23,884PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam.

' This appeal after conviction of having in possession intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale presents no new question of law.

The facts have been examined from the standpoint of the assignments of error and we find no reason for disturbing the result. The verdict is supported by the evidence. The usual bottle was found by a deputy sheriff on premises then in charge of defendant. The find was made in his presence. It did not seem to surprise him. He did not deny ownership or make any affirmation of innocence such as would have been expected of one free from guilt of the charge…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. HippsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  2. State v. ScheidSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  3. City of Duluth v. SidenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  4. State v. SaporinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API