State v. Shenton
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1906, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Sager (Minn. 1906)
- State v. Ward (Minn. 1886)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In regard to an offence purely statutory it is, as a general rule, sufficient in the indictment “ to charge the defendant with acts coming fully within the statutory description, in the substantia] words of the statute, without
The general tendency in modern times is to restrict, rather than extend, the exceptions to this rule, and especially is this the case in those states which, like our own, have adopted by statutory enactments more liberal rules than existed at common law for determining the sufficiency of indictments. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. § 374.
The offence charged by the indictment in this case is one created and defined by Gen. St. ch. 94, § 33, which provides that “ whoever, being armed with a dangerous weapon, assaults another, with intent to do great bodily harm, shall be punished,” etc. Within the rule above stated the indictment is sufficient. It distinctly and positively charges that, at a time and place therein stated, “ the defendants, being then and there armed with dangerous weapons, to wit, a revolver, then and there loaded with gunpowder and leaden bullets, and a large stick, to wit, a stick of stove wood eighteen inches in length, did feloniously assault one George Axier, with intent to do him, the said George Axier, great bodily harm,” and ends with the proper conclusion. The specification of the acts constituting the particular offence charged is sufficiently definite and certain fully to apprise the defendants of what they were required to meet, and, in case of trial and judgment thereon, to guard against another indictment for the same offence.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.