Lamb v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1894 |
| Citation | 41 Neb. 356,59 N.W. 895 |
| Parties | LAMB v. STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. On the trial of this case, the only questions which arose worthy of consideration were as to the sufficiency of the proof to justify a conviction, upon full consideration of which, it is found that the verdict of conviction was fully justified.
2. Ordinarily, the discretion of the trial judge in overruling a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed when the sole grounds for said motion are admissions of a juror as to his knowledge of the character of the accused, when such admissions have no reference to the facts tried; especially when, upon his voir dire examination, such juror had answered that he had no bias or prejudice which would prevent impartial action on his part.
Error to district court, Platte county; Sullivan, Judge.
Michael Lamb was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.W. F. Critchfield, M. B. Gearon, and Higgins & Garlow, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This case originated in Boone county. After a change of venue, the defendant was convicted in Platte county. The charge upon which he was found guilty was that he had aided, abetted, procured, incited, and hired Robert Nickerson and Lafayette Bolingbroke to steal certain cattle, the property of Simons & Co., of the value of $345. These cattle were, after the alleged larceny, found among cattle owned by the defendant, whose connection with and responsibility for the said larceny were established by the direct evidence of both Nickerson and Bolingbroke. In addition to this, George Schoolcraft, a disinterested witness,testified to some very damaging expressions which he had heard uttered by the defendant to Nickerson concerning the proposed theft of the cattle before they were stolen. The evidence of the defendant himself was in contradiction of that of the three witnesses named, and was explanatory of the fact that the stolen cattle were found with his own. There were several witnesses sworn, the testimony of whom tended to show that the cattle were not removed to Garfield county on the exact date which the witnesses for the prosecution fixed as that on which they were driven into said county. These were questions of fact, which were submitted to the jury for consideration in the determination of the guilt of the accused. The evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the conviction which followed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Skjelver
...of statements of parties other than jurors of what was said by jurors during conversations with them after the trial closed. Lamb v. State (Neb.) 59 N. W. 895. The action of the court in striking the affidavits from the record was not prejudicial to the rights of plaintiff in error. The jud......
-
Peterson v. Skjelver
... ... fact should be shown by the affidavits, and, as it was not, ... they were insufficient. Two of the affidavits refer to and ... state the substance of conversations which the affiants claim ... they had with jurors after the verdict was returned and the ... jury discharged. In one ... other than jurors of what was said by jurors during ... conversations with them after the trial had closed. (Lamb ... v. State, 41 Neb. 356, 59 N.W. 895.) The action ... ...
- Lamb v. State