State v. Rogne

• Decision Date: 14 July 1911
• Docket Number: 17,175 - (9)
• Citation: 132 N.W. 5,115 Minn. 204
• Parties: STATE v. OLE P. ROGNE
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

132 N.W. 5

115 Minn. 204

STATE v. OLE P. ROGNE

Nos. 17,175 - (9)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 14, 1911

Defendant was indicted for the crime of malicious mischief by the grand jury.The case was tried in the district court for Polk county and resulted in a verdict of guilty.From an order, Watts, J., denying defendant's motion for a new trial, he appealed.Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Malicious mischief -- evidence.

In a prosecution for malicious mischief, the verdict of guilty is held supported by the evidence.

Unreasonable searches and seizures.

The sheriff and county attorney, without the knowledge or consent of the accused, entered upon his premises and took and carried away certain articles of property, which were used as evidence against accused on the trial.In this the accused's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were not violated.State v Stoffels,89 Minn. 205, followed and applied.

Ole J. Vaule, William P. Murphy, and Charles Loring, for appellant.

Eric O. Hagen, County Attorney, and George T. Simpson, Attorney General, for the state.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

Defendant was indicted and convicted on the charge of malicious mischief, and appealed from an order denying a new trial.

The assignments of error present two questions, namely: (1) Whether the evidence supports the verdict of guilty; and (2) whether defendant's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures (section 10, art. 1, Const.) and being compelled to give evidence against himself (article 1, § 7, Const.) were violated on the trial below.

1.The offense charged was that of maliciously placing a large number of pieces of scrap iron in different sheaves of grain standing in shocks upon a quarter section of land near the residence of defendant, for the purpose of causing damage to and injuring the threshing machine engaged to thresh the grain, and to gratify an ill will held towards the owner of the machine.The evidence conclusively established the corpus delicti or body of the offense, namely, the maliciously placing of the scrap iron in the sheaves of grain by some one; but the evidence connecting defendant with the offense was wholly and entirely circumstantial.Numerous pieces of iron were found concealed in the grain shocks, and some of them passed unobserved through the machinery, damaging it to a considerable extent.To connect defendant with the offense the state produced evidence of many facts and circumstances tending to show his guilt, and, though he denied explicitly that he was in any way concerned in the wrongful acts, we are satisfied, since the trial court has approved the verdict, that it is not a case in which we would be justified in interfering.The court and jury had the witnesses before them, and were in a...