State v. Vogt
| Decision Date | 10 November 1928 |
| Citation | 57 N.D. 335,221 N.W. 887 |
| Parties | STATE v. VOGT. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
A motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the appellate court will not interfere with the trial court's ruling unless it is shown that such discretion has been abused.
In the instant case, it is held, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial.
Appeal from District Court, Renville County; W. J. Kneeshaw, Judge.
Harry Vogt was convicted of the crime of rape in the first degree, and from an order granting a new trial the State appeals. Affirmed.Geo. F. Shafer, Atty. Gen., and Geo. I. Rodsater, State's Atty., of Mohall, for the State.
E. R. Sinkler and G. O. Brekke, both of Minot, for respondent.
The defendant was convicted in the district court of Renville county of the crime of rape in the first degree. Thereafter he moved for a new trial on the grounds, among others, of (1) insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and that the same is clearly contrary to the law and against the evidence, and (2) prejudicial conduct of the state's attorney during the trial. The trial court ordered a new trial, and the state has appealed.
We are wholly agreed that the order appealed from must be affirmed. In a memorandum opinion filed with the order granting a new trial, the trial court, after reviewing the evidence in the case, expressed the belief that the complaining witness had been impeached on material matters, and stated that he did “not see how any reasonable person taking into consideration her evidence and demeanor on the witness stand, would not have a reasonable doubt of the truthfulness of her statement and a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt.” In the concluding paragraph of the memorandum opinion the court said:
“I personally have very serious doubts of the defendant's guilt from the evidence in the case, and cannot see how any reasonable person who heard the evidence and was not influenced by prejudice and passion in rendering their verdict, and as I honestly believe that there is such a doubt of defendant's guilt that it would be a miscarriage of justice not to grant a new trial, it is therefore ordered that the verdict be vacated and set aside and a new trial granted.”
[1][2] The principles governing the determination of a motion for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence were so fully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graber, Cr. N
...v. Cray, 31 N.D. 67, 153 N.W. 425; State v. Stepp, 48 N.D. 566, 185 N.W. 812, State v. Weber, 49 N.D. 325, 191 N.W. 610; State v. Vogt, 57 N.D. 335, 221 N.W. 887; State v. Strong, 52 N.D. 197, 201 N.W. 858; Kavanaugh v. Nestler, 45 N.D. 376, 177 N.W. 647, 3 Am.Jur. 164, Sec. 157, p. 140, Se......
-
State v. Shepard
...v. Cray, 31 N.D. 67, 153 N.W. 425; State v. Stepp, 48 N.D. 566, 185 N.W. 812; State v. Weber, 49 N.D. 325, 191 N.W. 610; State v. Vogt, 57 N.D. 335, 221 N.W. 887. evidence shows that between about eleven o'clock p.m. on September 18, 1936 and about twelve-thirty a.m. on the morning of Septe......
-
State v. Miller
... ... sound discretion of the trial court. If the trial court ... believe that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the ... verdict and grant a new trial for such reason this court, as ... a rule, will not disturb the ruling. State v. Vogt ... ...
-
State v. Miller, Cr. No. 49.
...to justify the verdict and grant a new trial, for such reason this court, as a rule, will not disturb the ruling. State v. Vogt, 57 N. D. 335, 221 N. W. 887. And when there is evidence upon which the jury can base the verdict and the court on such motion deems the evidence sufficient, such ......