Legal Opinion

State v. Dineen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 15, 1865PublishedCited by 21 opinions

The defendant was indicted in the Hennepin County District Court' for an assault with intent to do great bodily harm, being armed with a dangerous weapon. After the trial, at the request of the defendant, the Judge of the Court below reported the caso to the Supreme Court, for its decision of certain questions of law arising upon the trial. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the Court. I. —The indictment is not bad for duplicity.

Read the full summary

The defendant was indicted in the Hennepin County District Court' for an assault with intent to do great bodily harm, being armed with a dangerous weapon. After the trial, at the request of the defendant, the Judge of the Court below reported the caso to the Supreme Court, for its decision of certain questions of law arising upon the trial. A sufficient statement of the case appears in the opinion of the Court. I. —The indictment is not bad for duplicity. The section cited is not the law. The existing law on the subject of demurrers for duplicity will be found — sec. 138, p. 28, Amend, to P.…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court —

McMillan, J.

— The indictment in this ease is framed under the first section of Chap. 41, Session Laws, 1S64, which is in the following language : “If any person, being armed with a. dangerous weapon, shall assault another with intent to do great bodily harm, he shall be punished by fine,” &c.

The indictment charges that the defendant on the 8th of November, 1864, at Minneapolis, in Hennepin County, being armed with a dangerous weapon, to-wita large heavy stone, did'make an assault upon one George A. Brackett with intent to do him great bodily harm, and then and there with the…

2Cited by21 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. FarrellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
  2. State v. PearceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
  3. Moody v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1915
  4. People v. FuquaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  5. State v. ConwellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1932

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API