State v. Glass
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of Bowman County, Hon. W. L. Nuessle, Judge. Circumstantial evidence should be expressly defined, and the rules governing its effect should be concisely stated. It is always the duty of the trial court to so clearly define such evidence, whether requested or not, and a failure to do so is prejudicial error.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Bowman County, Hon. W. L. Nuessle, Judge. Circumstantial evidence should be expressly defined, and the rules governing its effect should be concisely stated. It is always the duty of the trial court to so clearly define such evidence, whether requested or not, and a failure to do so is prejudicial error. The court failed to do so in this ease, and the defendant’s substantial rights were prejudiced, and he is entitled to a new trial. 12 Oyc. 633; 1 Greenl. Ev. 15th ed. § 13, note A; People v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284;…
1Opinion
On Petition for Kehearing.
CheistiaNSON, J.
A strenuous petition for rehearing has been filed in this ease. It may be remarked at the outset that the petition in no manner complies with the rules of this court relating to such petitions, and sets forth no ground on which a rehearing may proqierly be asked, but is merely a reargument of certain portions of the case. The only points argued are those coming under ¶¶ 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the syllabus. Appellant’s counsel virtually contends that in a criminal case there can be no such thing as waiver of or estoppel to assert error, and that these rules…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- People v. DurrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- State v. KentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- State v. MortensenUtah Supreme Court · 1903
- People v. LawrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- People v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.