State v. Rasmusson
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 1932, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Scheid (Minn. 1932)
- State v. Saporin (Minn. 1931)
- City of Duluth v. Siden (Minn. 1926)
- State v. Hipps (Minn. 1924)
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
' This appeal after conviction of having in possession intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale presents no new question of law.
The facts have been examined from the standpoint of the assignments of error and we find no reason for disturbing the result. The verdict is supported by the evidence. The usual bottle was found by a deputy sheriff on premises then in charge of defendant. The find was made in his presence. It did not seem to surprise him. He did not deny ownership or make any affirmation of innocence such as would have been expected of one free from guilt of the charge with which he knew he was then confronted. A negative circumstance such as that may have a very affirmative and convincing effect upon a jury.
The alleged new evidence was of such a character that it' did not compel a new trial. The order denying one was well within the discretion of the trial judge.
Order denying new trial affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.