State v. Hansen, 22973.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22973.,22973.
• Citation: 153 Minn. 339,190 N.W. 481
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. HANSEN.

153 Minn. 339

190 N.W. 481

STATE

v.HANSEN.

No. 22973.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 3, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Wm. A. Cant, Judge.

Magner Fredericka Julia Hansen, indicted under the name of F. J. H. Hansen, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and from an order denying a new trial she appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant, a midwife, used instruments upon a patient to procure a miscarriage and that the instruments used caused the injection of germs which produced a septic condition resulting in death.

There was no prejudice to defendant in the participation of the trial court in examination of witnesses.

The court sufficiently charged the jury that, unless the germs were injected by the use of the instruments employed by defendant they could not find her guilty. James A. Wharton, of Duluth, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and W. E. Greene, Co. Atty., of Duluth, for the State.

HALLAM, J.

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree in causing the death of a woman by the unlawful use of instruments to procure a miscarriage. Defendant appeals from an order denying a new trial.

[1] 1. There is no doubt that deceased died as a result of septic poisoning incident to a miscarriage. There is abundant evidence of the unlawful use of instruments by defendant to procure a miscarriage. Defendant is a professional midwife duly licensed in the state of Minnesota. Deceased consulted her. In a dying declaration deceased accused defendant of using instruments upon her to procure a miscarriage. Defendant admitted the use of instruments but contended their use was for another and, as she contended, a lawful purpose, that of sterilization. It is difficult to read the testimony of defendant without being forced to the conclusion that the dying declaration of deceased was substantially true. Defendant admitted, that deceased came to her in January, 1920, and asked her to procure a miscarriage; that, after some talk, she said to deceased, ‘Don't you think you had better go through this anyhow?’ and when deceased said, ‘No,’ she said, ‘Well, I will give you four treatments and if they don't bring you I don't give you another treatment after that, remember that;’ that deceased took four treatments; that in February deceased came back but nothing was done; that on March 26th she came again and defendant, at her request ‘sterilized her’ by the use of instruments; that a few days later deceased came back and said, ‘I think something is doing.’ The process had commenced. Again in a few days deceased came and in substance told her that the miscarriage had occurred. She died about two weeks later. The medical testimony is that there is no occasion for the alleged sterilization which defendant claimed to have administered.

There is also, in our opinion, sufficient evidence that the use of instruments by defendant caused the injection of germs that produced the septic condition which resulted in death. This is in large measure matter of expert medical opinion. The medical opinion in the case is that death was due to septic germs which first lodged in the uterus; that the use of instruments is the common means of their introduction;...