Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

146 Minn. 34

State v. Huebsch

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 21, 1920

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1920-05-21

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury, tried in the district court for Blue Earth county before Comstock, J., who when the state rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the proceeding and at the close of the testimony defendant’s motion to direct a verdict of not guilty, and a jury, and convicted of the crime of incest. From the judgment sentencing him to hard labor for a term not exceeding, ten years at the St. Cloud Reformatory, he appealed.

Relies on State v. Christianson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1920-05-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1965

4 state decisions

2019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Dibell, J.

¶1Defendant was convicted of incest with his sister and appeals.

¶21. The evidence upon which the defendant was convicted was the testimony of his sister and his confession. One accused of crime cannot be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice nor upon his own confession. G. S. 1913, §§ 8462, 8463. But the testimony of an accomplice is corroborated by the confession of the accused, and he may he convicted on such testimony and his confession. State v. Christianson, 131 Minn. 276, 154 N. W. 1095; 3 Wigmore, Ev. § 2059.

¶32. The defendant’s sister testified when on the witness stand that at the time of the birth of her child, claimed to be the result of her incestuous intercourse with her brother, she said another person was its father. Two witnesses testified that she made such an admission. An objection to a question intended to elicit the fact that she was frequently in company with this person at a time which might be material was sustained, and a formal offer of proof, not definitely covering the material date, was refused. The proffered evidence was competent, but in view of the character of the evidence in the case its exclusion cannot be held prejudicial error.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/146/minn/34 · .json · Public domain