State v. Brand
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was indicted for the crime of selling liquor to a public prostitute, tried in the district court for the county of Blue Earth before Pfau, J., and a jury, and convicted. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, O.
Defendant was convicted of selling liquor to a public prostitute, lie made a motion for a new trial and appealed from the order denying this motion.
1. The prosecution was permitted to support the charge that the woman to whom the liquor was furnished was a public prostitute by testimony that such was her general reputation. Defendant insists that the admission of such evidence was error. We cannot sustain this contention. When it is necessary to establish the character of a person as to chastity or unchastity, evidence of the reputation of such person in that respect is proper. 2…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- State v. DurnamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- State v. PearceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- State v. SchuellerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. TownleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- State v. PriceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- State v. BernsteinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- State v. PalmerstenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- State v. SturgisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.