State v. Meyers

• Decision Date: 12 January 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23146.,23146.
• Citation: 191 N.W. 597,154 Minn. 242
• Parties: STATE v. MEYERS et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

154 Minn. 242

191 N.W. 597

STATE

v.MEYERS et al.

No. 23146.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 12, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, McLeod County; C. M. Tifft, Judge.

George S. Meyers and Frank Exsted were convicted of arson. From an order denying a new trial, defendant Exsted appeals. Reversed.

Hallam, J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

In a criminal prosecution for arson, it is held, that a new trial should have been granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and the repudiation of the testimony given by the witness upon whose evidence conviction was had. Donohue & Quigley, of St. Cloud, P. W. Morrison, of Norwood, and F. R. Allen, of Glencoe, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., J. E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Wm. McNelly, Co. Atty., of Hutchinson, for the State.

BROWN, C. J.

Defendants in this cause were jointly indicted by the grand jury of McLeod county, and thereby charged with the crime of arson, alleged to have been committed in that county on the 7th day of June, 1921. Defendant Meyers interposed a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to a term in prison. Defendant Exsted pleaded not guilty, but on trial was convicted, and now waits sentence on the verdict. He appealed from an order denying a new trial.

It appears that defendant Exsted owns several farms near Glencoe, in McLeod county, which are occupied and carried on by tenants, on one of which defendant Meyers was a tenant. Exsted is unmarried, and of the age of 38 years. Early in the evening of the date in question the granary and barn on the premises occupied by Meyers were discovered on fire, and they were entirely consumed, together with certain grain and farm machinery. The loss was covered by insurance. The fire was thought to be incendiary in origin and the state fire marshal's office was applied to for inquiry into the matter. A representative from that office appeared on the scene, who, after considerable investigation, reached the conclusion that the fire was the result of deliberate action by defendants, with the insurance on the property the objective; Meyers being accused of applying the torch. Meyers was arrested in September, 1921, and for want of bail confined in the McLeod county jail. Both were subsequently indicted and formally charged with the crime. Exsted protested his innocence, but Meyers pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison. Exsted was found guilty by the jury.

The principal question urged by Exsted in support of the appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict against him. In view of the conclusion we have reached upon that feature of the case we make no reference to other points presented and discussed in the briefs. Upon that question we conclude that there should be a new trial, for the reason, in the main, of doubts created by the record as to the truth of the evidence of Meyers, upon which the state largely relied for conviction. We therefore come directly to that question.

Meyers was called by the state, and gave direct and positive evidence that he started the fire at the instance and suggestion of Exsted, and that he was to receive as compensation for the act $50 in money and either the title or use of 40 acres of other land owned by Exsted. His examination, both direct and cross, covered the transaction in its details, and in some important respects was corroborated to a certain extent. Yet it may be doubted whether the corroborating evidence is sufficient, standing alone, to sustain the verdict. But since the trial some new facts have developed, and Meyers now makes affidavit that the testimony given by him on the trial was false and untrue; that he did not in fact set the fire, as he testified, and that he was neither urged nor incited to do so by Exsted, that he was induced to admit his guilt and to...