State v. McCarthy
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentDell, Chief Justice
In my opinion the judgment of conviction and sentence should be affirmed.
For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the testimony alluding to the defendant’s refusal to take a urinalysis test was inadmissible. However, the error was promptly corrected by the trial court in immediately instructing the jury to disregard the question and answer pursuant to the objection made. A new trial should not ordinarily be granted for the erroneous admission of evidence where the jury is clearly and distinctly instructed to disregard it. See, e. g., Zuber v. N. P. Ry. Co. 246 Minn. 157, 176, 74 N. W.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Town of Wells v. SullivanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- State v. WatzekSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924