¶1The appellant was convicted of the crime of arson. A motion was made for a new trial, on the ground that one of the jurors had drank intoxicating liquors during the trial, and also on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. The motion was denied, hence this appeal. The questions raised are not the subject of an appeal, as has just been shown in the case of Kearney v. Snodgrass, ante, p. 311, and the authorities there cited.
12 Or. 318
State v. Becker
Decided June 8, 1885
Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1885-06-08
<p>Motion fob New Tbial—Appeal eboíu—Misconduct oe Jubob.—The ruling of the trial court on a motion for a new trial, on the grounds that a juror had drank intoxicating liquors during the trial, and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, cannot be reviewed on appeal.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1885-06-08
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1924
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →