144 Minn. 377 | Minn. | 1920
Lead Opinion
The' defendant was convicted of faking indecent liberties with a female child under 14 years of age, and appeals.
As much as one-third of the cross-examination was directed to the alleged conduct of the defendant in taking a young woman of the vicinity to Fargo, the plain implication being that he did so for improper pur-'
In reaching this conclusion we note the trial court’s view that the defendant was guilty, .and but for the persistent and prejudicial questioning we would not disturb the result. The trial court was entirely fair, and it was eommendably careful of the defendant’s rights when the time for sentence came. There was a suggestion then that the defendant at times, was mentally affected. The interests of justice will be subserved by a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
In my opinion the conduct of the county attorney in asking questions was not such misconduct as to warrant a reversal. See State v. Quirk, 101 Minn. 334, 112 N. W. 409; State v. Johnson, 114 Minn. 493, 131 N. W. 629.