State v. Zeimer

McDonough, justice.

From the granting of a new trial solely on the issue of whether he was an habitual criminal, and from the instructions to the jury on that issue, defendant appeals. Defendant contends that the court cannot grant a new trial solely on the issue of prior convictions because the jury which determines if a man is an habitual criminal must be the jury which finds him guilty of the joined offense.1 He asserts that the instructions, connoting a criminal offense, are prejudicial error because “habitual criminal” is not a crime, but only a status.2

Zeimer was tried under an…