138 MINN 321 - State v. Atanosoff

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1963

3 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.

Dibell, C.

¶1The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and appeals from the order denying his motion to settle a ease and his motion for a new trial.

¶21. There is no settled case nor bill of exceptions. The court denied *322the defendant’s motion to settle his proposed case. The order denying the motion is not appealable nor is it reviewable on the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial. Mandamus is the remedy. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 1383, et seq; Richards on v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 461, 35 N. W. 270; Schumann v. Mark, 35 Minn. 379, 28 N. W. 927; State v. MacDonald, 30 Minn. 98, 14 N.W. 459; State v. Cox, 26 Minn. 214, 2 N. W. 494.

¶32. In the absence of a certification under the statute, or a bill of exceptions or settled case, a ruling on a challenge to the grand jury cannot be reviewed; nor without a ease or bill of exceptions can rulings at the trial or the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict be considered. See G. S. 1913, § 9251; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. & 1916 Supp. §§ 342-350, 1368, 1369, 2493, and cases cited. This is the character of the objections-urged by the appellant.

¶4So far as the appeal is directed to the order denying the defendant’s motion to settle a case it is dismissed. So far as the order denies a new trial it is affirmed.

¶5Order affirmed.