State v. Korth
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
McCOY, J„
Decision affirming the judgment of the lower court appears in 162 N. W. 144 . Upon rehearing.we are of the opinion that a new trial should be granted. One of the questions raised by the assignments of error was that the evidence was insufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of the offense charged. The evidence was mostly circumstantial, and was of such a nature that the conclusion of guilt does not logically or naturally follow therefrom. While we are of the view that there was no positive or clear error shown to- have been committed on the trial, still we are of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence adduced on the trial upon the vital issue of connecting the defendant with the commission of the offense charged was uncertain, weak, and unsatisfactory to such an extent that it should not be held sufficient to produce an abiding conviction of guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt, of such a serious offense.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for new trial.
SMITH, J. I adhere to my dissent in the former decision in this case, but concur in the view that a new trial should be granted.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.