Legal Opinion

State v. Foster

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1905PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Grand Forks county; Fisk, J. C. H. Foster was convicted' of larceny, and appeals. By a continuance for more than three days the magistrate lost jurisdiction and the commitment was void, there being no preliminary examination to support it. State v. Barnes, 3 N. D. 131, 54 N. W. 541; State v. Weltner, 7 N. D. 522, 75 N. W. 779. An information should charge the same offense as that of the complaint on preliminary examination.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny upon an information filed by the state’s attorney of Grand Forks county. A motion for new trial was overruled, and he has appealed from the order and judgment.

The first error assigned is the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion to set aside the information, which was upon two grounds: (1) That he had no preliminary examination before the information was filed; and (2) that the information was not filed at the next term of the district court after his commitment. The motion was properly denied. The claim that there was no preliminary…

2Cases cited20 opinions

Hickory v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
State v. RomeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
State v. DonnellySupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
People v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by19 opinions

State v. GlassNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
State v. WilsonWyoming Supreme Court · 1924
State v. LongstrethNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
State v. ReillyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
State v. KroeplinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978

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