Opinion · Sdlaw South Dakota

STATE v. GONSOR, 64 S.D. 642 (1936)

269 N.W. 568

Type
Opinion
Court
Sdlaw South Dakota
Jurisdiction
Sdlaw
Date
1936-11-16
Topic
general

STATE v. GONSOR, 64 S.D. 642 (1936) 269 N.W. 568 STATE, Respondent, v. GONSOR, Appellant. File No. 7913.Supreme Court of South Dakota. Opinion filed November 16 1936.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. GONSOR, 64 S.D. 642 (1936). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. GONSOR,64 S.D. 642(1936)
269 N.W. 568
STATE, Respondent, v. GONSOR, Appellant.
File No. 7913.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Opinion filed November 16 1936.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Day County; HON. HOWARD BABCOCK, Judge.
J.G. McFarlandandK.C. Paterson,both of Watertown, for Appellant.Walter Conway,Attorney General,Laurence Dimsdale,Assistant Attorney General, andLewis W. Bicknell,State's Attorney, of Webster, for the State.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was convicted under an information containing two counts: First, driving while intoxicated; second, failing to stop the automobile which he was driving after injuring a person. The only question presented on this appeal is whether a new trial should be granted upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence. We have carefully considered the entire record and especially the affidavits submitted in support of a motion for a new trial. We are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the motion.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

All the Judges concur.Page 643