State v. Herdina
| Decision Date | 02 July 1878 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 161 |
| Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> FRANK HERDINA. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
county, for an assault, with dangerous weapons, upon one Barker, with intent to do him great bodily harm. The defendant requested and was granted a separate trial, which was had before Lord, J., and a jury, and resulted in a conviction. A new trial was denied and sentence was passed, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and the order refusing a new trial.
A. C. Hickman and Amos Coggswell, for appellant.
Geo. P. Wilson, Attorney General, and J. M. Burlingame, for the State.
There was certainly sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding that the party with whom the defendant was acting committed an assault upon Barker, and that one of them, Adolph Herdina, was using, in the assault, a dangerous weapon, with intent to do great bodily harm to Barker. There is also evidence enough to justify the jury in finding that each of the persons participating in the assault, including this defendant, knew that Adolph was armed with and was using a dangerous weapon, with intent to do great bodily harm, and that, in assisting in the assault, they participated in and had the same intent as he who held the weapon. The court was, therefore, right in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty.
Defendant requested an instruction that if the jury believed that the motive or intention of the defendant was to protect or defend his sons, or either of them, in the fight, then they would find a verdict of not guilty. The court refused to so instruct, but, in its general charge, did instruct as to the right of a parent to protect his child, and the limitations of the right. Precisely what this instruction was does not appear, except that the court instructed that it would depend on what the sons were doing; that there was no right to protect in committing a crime. This is undoubtedly correct. A parent may protect a child from an assault, as the party assaulted may protect himself, but may not protect a child in committing an assault.
The defendant requested an instruction that the arming must precede the assault, and that, to convict defendant as an accessory, he must have aided the principals in the previous arming with the knife, and in making the assault on Barker. This was clearly wrong, for after the principal is armed with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stabs v. City of Tower, 35013
...persons are responsible for their acts. State v. Weltz, 155 Minn. 143, 193 N.W. 42; State v. Corrivau,93 Minn. 38, 100 N.W. 638; State v. Herdina, 25 Minn. 161. As said in State v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22, 28: '* * * A drunken man, equally with a sober man, is presumed to know and intend the act......
-
Stabs v. City of Tower, 35013.
...persons are responsible for their acts. State v. Weltz, 155 Minn. 143, 193 N.W. 42;State v. Corrivau,93 Minn. 38, 100 N.W. 638;State v. Herdina, 25 Minn. 161. As said in State v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22, 28: ‘* * * A drunken man, equally with a sober man, is presumed to know and intend the acts ......
-
Alexander v. State
...Saens v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 20 S. W. 737; State v. Brit-tain, 89 N. C. 482 (5); State v. Melton, 102 Mo. 684 (3) 15 S. W. 139; State v. Herdina, 25 Minn. 161. In the present case no restriction or limitations were suggested. The judge gave the defendant the benefit of the fullest and mos......
-
State v. Mickens, 40294
...of mind.'3 White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348.4 State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 139 N.W.2d 785.5 See, State v. Herdina, 25 Minn. 161; State v. Corrivau, 93 Minn. 38, 100 N.W. 638; 6 C.J.S., Assault and Battery, § ...