State v. Wagner

Decided May 15, 1877

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1877-05-15

Defendant was tried and convicted, in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, on a complaint for assault and battery. At the trial the defendant excepted to the ruling of the court refusing to permit him to close the argument to the jury. For this alleged error, and on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, and on affidavits of newly-discovered evidence, the defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he appealed to this, court.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1885

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Dumphey · Nininger v. Knox · Mead v. Constans

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Berry, J.

¶11. “When the evidence is concluded upon the trial of any indictment, in the district courts or courts of common pleas in this state, … the defendant shall conclude the argument to the jury,” Laws 1875, c. LL, § I-

¶2 *545This provision relates to the trial of indictments only. It cannot be made applicable to the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, under Sp. Laws 1874, c. 141, § 12, because the proceeding by indictment is there Unknown.

¶32. Notwithstanding the defendant’s claim to the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the case reasonably tending to sustain and justify the verdict.

¶43. The motion for a new trial, on account of newly-discovered evidence, was properly denied, since the evidence is all either impeaching, cumulative, or corroborative, or it is not shown that due diligence was used to procure it. State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438; Mead v. Constans, 5 Minn. 171 ; Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 140.

¶5Judgment affirmed.