State v. Nichols
| Citation | 229 N.W. 99,179 Minn. 301 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | 27,693 |
| Parties | STATE v. GUST NICHOLS AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant Nichols was convicted of the crime of robbery in the first degree and appealed from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Bardwell, J. denying his motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Firearms -- evidence of prior possession of similar revolver.
1(a). Admitting evidence that defendant, at prior times and places had in his possession a revolver similar to the one used by him in the robbery complained of was not error.
Same.
(b) In the discretion of the court such evidence was admissible, although one of the occasions was some 11 months prior to the robbery charged.
Competent evidence incidentally showing other crimes.
(c) Such evidence being admitted for a proper purpose and limited by the court's charge to that purpose, it would not be inadmissible even if it had incidentally shown the commission of other crimes.
July -- attendance at theater.
2. Permitting a jury in a criminal case, while closely guarded and in charge of the court's bailiffs, to attend a theatrical performance, while not to be recommended, was not such misconduct as to require a new trial, where there was not in the play witnessed any reference to the case on trial or anything likely to prejudice the jury.
No misconduct of state's counsel.
3. Misconduct of counsel held not shown.
Conviction sustained.
4. The evidence amply sustains the verdict and a fair trial was had.
Criminal Law, 16 C.J. § 1045 p. 546 n. 18; § 1134 p. 588 n. 8; § 2536 p. 1080 n. 79; 17 C.J. § 3638 p. 298 n. 22.
William M. Nash, Chester L. Nichols, Bruce Barnett and Ira B. McLaughlin, for appellant.
Henry N. Benson, Attorney General, James E. Markham, Deputy Attorney General, Floyd B. Olson, County Attorney, and William G. Compton, Assistant County Attorney, for the state.
Defendant Gust Nichols was convicted of the crime of robbery in the first degree and appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The crime charged was that defendant, aided by two others and being armed with a loaded revolver, robbed one Ernest H. Porter at Minneapolis in this state on October 3, 1928. The state, over objections by the defendant, was permitted to show that on two other occasions, in November, 1927, and July, 1928, at places distant from Minneapolis, the defendant had in his possession a revolver similar to the one claimed to have been used by him at the time of the robbery. The state did not show that any crime was committed by defendant on the two occasions mentioned, and the evidence was admitted for the purpose of showing that defendant possessed or owned the revolver claimed to have been used by him in the robbery in question. The defendant contends this evidence was too remote and that, by inference, from the showing that on one occasion the defendant had the revolver in his possession in a bank and, on the other occasion, while in the presence or custody of police officers, the jury would believe that he was then committing other crimes.
As to its being remote, the trial court had discretion to receive or not receive this evidence and did not abuse its discretion. The evidence being admissible for a proper purpose and, by the charge of the court, clearly limited to that purpose, the defendant cannot complain even if it had incidentally shown the commission of other crimes. State v. McClendon, 172 Minn. 106, 214 N.W. 782; State v. Barone, 173 Minn. 232, 217 N.W. 104; 16 C.J. p. 546, § 1045.
2. One evening during the trial the jury, closely guarded and in charge of bailiffs, was permitted to attend a theatrical performance. The defendant offered to show the plot of the play and that it involved a murder trial wherein the...
To continue reading
Request your trial