Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Halvorsen

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1961No. File 9849Published

1ConcurrenceBiegelmeier, J.

That this conviction must be reversed for error in admitting the testimony given by defendant at the coroner’s inquest follows from the holding in State v. Hoffman, 53 S.D. 182, 220 N.W. 615 and approved in State v. Smith, 56 S.D. 238, 228 N.W. 240. See also State v. Allison, 116 Mont. 352, 153 P.2d 141; 5 A.L.R.2d 1446, 1453. Whether the court should further direct the information be quashed seems of such moment as to require this expression of concurrence. This legal principle was announced by dictum in the Smith opinion, accepted, distinguished or not applied in State ex rel. Poach v. Sly,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. United States v. Patrick J. ScullyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
  3. People v. De FeoNew York Court of Appeals · 1955
  4. State v. SinnottSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1947
  5. People v. . FerolaNew York Court of Appeals · 1915

6 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