State v. McClain
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentHilton, Justice
I do not think that the conviction, however right it might be in actual result, can be sustained on the record. For reasons to be stated, I cannot agree that the clear mandate of 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 9902, has been met by the state.
As a prelude and to clear the path for discussion of relevant points, it must be emphasized that the questions here are not whether we feel that the defendant is guilty or whether a new trial with additional evidence might well result in the same verdict. Rather the single question is whether the defendant has been convicted according to the provisions of law…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. SaporenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- People v. KirbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- State v. McLarneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Caldwell v. BruggermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- State v. MamerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.