Cited by

623 (1926); State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , 97 N.W.

1 See, State v. Smith, 221 Minn. 359 , State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , State v. Mohrbacher, 173 Minn. 567 , State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51 , certiorari denied, 397 U. S. 1049 , 90 S. Ct. 1381 , 25 L. ed. 2d 662 (1970).

State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Morris, 149 Minn. 41 , .

orm requested, stating: “The court is not required to charge in the exact language requested if the instructions as given correctly set forth the applicable law.” Since we find that the instant case was properly submitted to the jury under correct instructions, and no prejudicial error was committed in the rulings on evidence, the record before us brings it within the doctrine of State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , , quoted with approval in State v. Price, 135 Minn. 159, 167 , , as follows: “* * * ‘

State v. Waddell, 187 Minn. 191 , ; State v. Shepard, 171 Minn. 414 , ; State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , .

defendant also presents the affidavit of Charles Timberlake to the effect that he and his girl friend, Marie Culph, “were induced by Minneapolis Police to testify against James Wofford at his trial and [Marie Culph] was told if she testified against James Wofford, as instructed, by police, it would help me receive probation, as we both testified falsely against James Wofford.” In State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 155 , , we said: “A motion for a new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered e

er a careful consideration of the evidence that, if the alleged misconduct *347 oí the prosecutor in proceeding to cross-examine the defendant on specific items of alleged misconduct were eliminated, the evidence would yet be sufficient to sustain the verdict within the rule applicable to such questions when raised in this court as contended for on the part of the state in citing State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , , and other cases upon which it relies.

373 , 31 N. W. (2d) 37 ; State v. Brodt, 150 Minn. 431 , ; State v. Broughton, 154 Minn. 390 , ; State v. McReady, 154 Minn. 366 , ; State v. Kraus, 175 Minn. 174 , ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Kruse, 137 Minn. 468 , ; Helmbrecht v. Helmbrecht, 31 Minn. 504 , ; State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State ex rel.

State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Morris, 149 Minn. 41 , .

7 National Citizens Bank v. Thro, 110 Minn. 169 , ; State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 148 , ; 3 Am.

499 , 161 S. W. 1017 ; State v. Kiley, 113 N. C. 648 , 18 S. E. 168 ; Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U. S. 51 , 15 S. Ct. 273 , 39 L. ed. 343; United States v. Taylor (C. C.) 11 F. 470 ; see, State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Price, 135 Minn. 159 , ; 2 Bishop, New Criminal Procedure (2d) § 977, p. 813; 1 Zoline, Federal Criminal Law and Procedure, § 419.

This court has long been committed to the attitude that “new trials should be granted only where the substantial rights of the accused have been so violated as to make it reasonably clear that a fair trial was not had.” State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 145 , .

See State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Barnett, 193 Minn. 336 , .

• * * * The safeguards thrown around accused persons are hot intended as a means to enable the criminal to effect an escape from the punishment his crime calls for, but to protect the innocent and secure to all a fair, impartial, and orderly trial on definite lines of procedure.” State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 145 , .

A new trial should be granted only in those cases where the “substantial rights of the accused have been so violated as to make it reasonably clear that a fair trial was not had.” State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , .

*165 State v. Ahern, 54 Minn. 195 , ; State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Cox, 172 Minn. 226 , .

State v. Rose, 47 Minn. 47 , ; State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Potoniec, 117 Minn. 80 , ; State v. Damuth, 135 Minn. 76 , .

There was nothing affecting adversely “defendant’s substantial or constitutional rights.” Hence there must be affirmance under the long-standing rule of this court established by a long line of decisions beginning with State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , .

State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Wheat, 166 Minn. 300 , ; 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

State v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 34 , (defendant offered stolen watch for sale to pawnbroker; fled when requested to wait); State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 154 , State v. Ryan, 137 Minn. 78 , (effort to escape after theft; use of disguise); State v. Maddaus, 137 Minn. 249 , State v. Green, 153 Minn. 127 , (failure of a defendant to appear at trial)

State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Morris, 149 Minn. 41 , .

“It is elementary that a trial court cannot instruct a jury to return a verdict of guilty in a criminal prosecution” was said in State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 146 , .

The rule stated in State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , , that where, from an examination of the evidence it appears that there is no reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt, alleged errors not affecting his substantial or constitutional rights should be brushed aside and in their place substituted the almighty force and power of truth, might well be here appl