Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Minn. 373

State v. Schumm

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 25, 1891

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1891-11-25

Defendant was tried and convicted in the district court for Wright county, before Poncl, J., on an indictment for selling “intoxicating liquor, to wit, beer,” “on the 30th day of November, A. D. 1890, being the Sabbath day,” and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and costs, and to 15 days’ imprisonment in the county jail. He appeals from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial.

Relies on State v. Greenman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-11-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1969

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

2018911900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Dickinson, J.

¶11. The motion to set aside the indictment was not-made in time to enable the defendant to take advantage of the facts that the grand-jury list in the clerk’s office had not been certified and signed by the chairman of the board of county commissioners, and that the court had sumhaoned two additional grand jurors by special venire, although a sufficient number of grand jurors of the regular panel to constitute a legal grand jury had appeared. The motion was not'made until the commencement of the trial. The statute requires such a motion to be made at the time of the arraignment, unless for good cause the court postpones the hearing to another time; and, if not then made, the defendant is precluded from afterwards raising such objections. Gen. St. 1878, c. 110, §§ 1-4; c. 109, § 19.

¶22. A challenge to the panel of the petit jury was interposed for the reason that the petit-jury list, drawn by the board of county commissioners and deposited in the office of the clerk of the court, was not certified nor signed by the chairman of that board, although it was properly attested by the county auditor. The fact was as indicated in the challenge. In this particular the statutory requirement as to the making and authentication of the list from which the jury had been drawn had not been complied with. Id. c. 8, § 107. The departure from the requirement of the statute was material, (State v. Greenman, 23 Minn. 209, 211,) and for this defect the challenge was well taken, and the court erred in its ruling to the contrary. A new trial must therefore be allowed.

¶3Order reversed.

/47/minn/373 · .json · Public domain