State v. Ingraham
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury for the crime of rape and tried in the district court for the county of Pine before Stolberg, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict of guilty. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied. Prom the order denying the 'motion, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The defendant was convicted in the district court of the county of Pine of the crime of rape. He appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The first contention here urged in his behalf is that the verdict of guilty is not justified by the evidence, in that it fails to show that the act was committed against the will or consent of the prosecutrix; or, in other words, that it does not show that she resisted to her utmost, or at least to the extent of her ability. The general abstract rule as to the degree of resistance required on the part of the female in cases of this kind is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. AltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- State v. HoranSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- State v. CowingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- State v. Robert P. Lewis Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. GandelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- State v. MillardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- State v. TothSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- State v. TurnbullSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- State v. GreensteinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.