State v. Hughes
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 1928, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Lund (Minn. 1928)
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
Appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, based upon a settled case and affidavits alleging newly discovered evidence. The defendant was convicted of the offense of bank robbery and sentenced to the state prison on October 29, 1921. On October 10, 1922, he moved the court for a new trial which was denied. This was over 11 months after sentence and judgment of conviction was entered. It should have been made within the six-month period allowed for appeal from the judgment. No excuse for its not having been made within that period was offered or could avail. A transcript of the testimony was unnecessary, as the assignments of error need not be specified in criminal actions. The motion for a new trial was properly denied on the ground that it was made too late. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, §§ 7087, 7088; Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 302, 13 N. W. 129; Deering v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 97, 22 N. W. 174; State v. Johnson, 146 Minn. 468, 177 N. W. 657. The practice relating to new trials in criminal cases is the same as in civil. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 2489.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.