State v. Brinkhaus
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Carver county, Macdonald, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. It was error to allow the prosecutrix to state that she allowed the-intercourse because of the promise of marriage. 1 G-reenl. Ev. § 65; State v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 95, (154;) Hathaway v. Brown, 22 Minn.,. 215.
1Opinion of the Court
Mitchell, 7.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of seducing, under promise of marriage, an unmarried female of previous chaste character. Gen. St. 1878, c. 100, § 6. The statute provides that no conviction shall be had on the testimony of'the female seduced, unsupported by other evidence.
The main contention here is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, in that (1) it did not appear that there was any promise of marriage, or that the intercourse was by reason of such promise; (2) that it appears that the female was not of previous chaste character; and (3) that there…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Woodruff v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
- Ferguson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1894
- State v. GensmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- People v. KehoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- State v. WenzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.