*1 docketing judg- of the subsequent to the purchase as a new regarded
ments must be as the creditor is far
cerned, of the merely performance
original contract. Coolbaugh controlling think
We
authority. We must look essential v. Al of the transaction. Keith
nature
brecht,
As previously noted property, the same
volved the same price. Viewed purchase
and the same basic Janohosky’s exercise of light, perform
option agreement represents “the so original contract” far as
ance have considered
Gordon concerned. We find them to arguments
Gordon’sother
be without merit.
The district court’s order Janoho-
sky’s motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale is disposition
reversed and remanded opinion.
inconsistent with this PETERSON, JJ., part took the consideration decision this case. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE
Harvey CARIGNAN, Appellant. Louis
Aug. *2 ap main
Defendant s
contention
refusing
court erred in
peal is
that the
postver-
explain
counsel to
to allow defense
finding
guilty
a
of not
consequences
insanity and that
by reason of
instruct, sua
failing
to
court erred
of such a ver
consequences
sponte, on the
approach of this court
general
dict. The
any argument or in
prohibit
has been to
consequences
struction on
Meany,
in criminal case.
verdict
State
491,115
(1962);
N.W.2d 247
262 Minn.
DePauw,
243 Minn.
tion, permission cretion in and we affirm. jury; possible to so advise the surrebuttal be- psychiatric its call jury’ forget their ‘invitation to the opportunity he had had already according to oath to a true verdict render prosecu- to which the testify on the matter by advising them of the the evidence testimony related. tor’s a verdict consequence of Defendant has shown *3 insanity.” of reason court’s of his motion trial denial mid-trial 367, also, Babin, 381 See State v. 319 So.2d jury his sequestration prejudiced State, (La., Rehearing); 1975 on Kuk v. 80 fact, the case. In there is evidence on 291, (Nev.1964). Nev. 392 630 P.2d that the ever the article jury read Minnesota does not have an automatic prompted pre which the motion. We must 20, commitment Rule Rules of Crimi- rule. sume that they did because Procedure, when a de- provides nal that carefully to ex instructed them not court fendant is found any themselves to accounts of pose media deficiency, mental the illness or even if Finally, appears the trial. it that proceed- court shall civil commitment question— the had read the article in against him. The de- ings to be instituted by which was about a similar attack defend completion of pending is detained young ant on another woman —it charged If the proceedings. the crime preju the jury clear that would have been or and the de- felony gross misdemeanor indicated, it. diced As we committed, he thereaft- fendant is shall not testimony one such on its own elicited about if the trial er be released from commitment incident. other determines, pro- his on There con is no merit release, posed that he continues to be men- a ver tention that the evidence mandated tally ill deficient and the insanity. reason In of public. Hoskins, 111, 193 N.W.2d legal consequences If the knows the (1972), we 802 affirmed a conviction even illness, acquittal by of an reason of mental though expert testimony the on its verdict not be of a product will the the issue Here insanity of was unrebutted. “mistaken that defendant impression the the the defendant’s of necessarily indefinitely will be freed or be rebutted. committed mental institution.” State to a Affirmed. 289, Krol, 236, 265, 68 A.2d 304 N.J. prevent the court cannot the Since part, and speculating on results of its jury from the verdict, it at least ensure that such should result, I concur but because infor- are based on accurate considerations analyze v. Bott we attempt did mation. rules changing or consider the merits of autho- Accordingly prospectively insanity is a governing instructions instruct on the rize courts to defense, do so. would now following provisions of Rules Subd. (4), Procedure, Generally, approving disposition 8(1) and of Criminal courts Rules rulings by the to do requested instructions base their whenever so: jury’s dicial effect erroneous belief acquittal will free grounds Finding Effect Legal “Subd. Cole, People
the defendant. 382 Mich. In Reason Illness Guilty by Not of Mental 695, 720, (1969), or Deficiency. be-
court viewed its decision a choice “(1) Mental Illness. When a tween: not guilty by found reason of mental “ * * * illness, possible miscarriage is under civil ill, justice the court by imprisoning a defendant commitment as refusal the commitment be who should due to shall order that hospitalized, be commitment, tinued, and if not under pro-
court shall cause civil commitment Appellant, HOLIDAY ACRES NO. ceedings against to be instituted him and that the defendant be detained in a state FEDERAL MIDWEST SAVINGS AND hospital facility pending comple- or other LOAN OF MINNE- ASSOCIATION proceedings. tion of the The commit- APOLIS, Respondent. ment or continuing felony commitment in misdemeanor cases shall be subject supervision of the trial provided by court as Rule
8(4). Oct. “(4) Continuing Supervision. felony In *4 Rehearing Denied Nov. only, and misdemeanor cases any pro- trial court shall be notified of
posed termination of the civil commit-
ment, court, and the notice shall If hold thereon.
the court determines that the defendant ill or deficient and public, the defendant shall not be
discharged from civil commitment. Oth-
erwise, the civil commitment shall be ter-
minated discharged
therefrom.”
WAHL, part, Justice
concurring J., join the opinion
in the result but proposing
change instructions governing the rule is a defense.
IRVINE, (concurring specially). majority opinion.
I concur in the
oppose instructing as to Rule 8(1) (4) the reason that the
“civil commitment proceedings” might not
result in a commitment.