State v. Pearson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent
Holt and Dibell, JJ.
(dissenting).
We dissent:
What the county attorney told Pearson that Mrs. Pearson said was inadmissible. State v. Solem, 135 Minn. 200, 160 N. W. 491. This is conceded. The majority view is that error was not saved at the trial.
A reference to the record best shows what transpired. The county attorney testified that he had two conversations with Mrs. Pearson. After so stating he was asked to narrate his subsequent conversation with the defendant in the county jail. Such a conversation might be competent and material. It might involve an admission. The state knew it would not.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Graves v. BonnessSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Malone v. StephensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Carson v. HawleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Larson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Drew v. CarrollSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.