Cited by

“We have a natural hesitation to reverse a conviction on errors * * * in the admission of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is strong * * *, [b]ut to reach the conclusion[ ] that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of the defendant was conclusively proven.” State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168 , (quoting State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.

See ge?ierally Swanson v. La Fontaine, 238 Minn. 460, 469 , *784 State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.

“We have a natural hesitation to reverse a conviction on errors * * * in the admission of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is strong * * *, [b]ut to reach the conclusion[ ] that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of defendant was conclusively proven.” State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168 , (quoting State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.

To conclude that the error was without prejudice we must hold that appellant’s guilt was “conclusively proven.” State v. Dinneen, 300 Minn. 354, 359 , (quoting State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.

Error in the reception of evidence will only be disregarded “if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction,” or when the defendant’s guilt was “conclusively proven.” State v. *63 Fratzke, ( State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.

The standard for establishing harmless error is demanding — the error will only be disregarded “if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction,” or when defendant’s guilt was “conclusively proven.” State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.

See, State v. Demmings, 310 Minn. 152 , State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , 141 N.W.

As we held in State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , it is error to confine the jury’s consideration of the character evidence to the question of the credibility of the defendant as a witness.

In considering whether prejudicial error occurring at the trial may have affected its outcome, we said in State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , , 484: “ ‘* * * But to reach the conclusions that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of defendant was conclusively proven.

In State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , , we said: “We have a natural hesitation to reverse a conviction on errors in the instructions or in the admission of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is strong.

In considering whether prejudicial errors occurring at the trial may have affected its outcome, we said in State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , , 484: “* * * But to reach the conclusions that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of defendant was conclusively proven.

3 Defendant relies principally upon State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , .

State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , .

See, State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , .

App. 418, 145 S. W. [2d] 883); trademarked bottles in junk yards (People v. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32 , 34 N. E. 759 , 36 A. S. R. 668); stolen property or other fruits of crime (State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , ).

Thus, in State v. Sauer, 38 Minn. 438 , , Judge Mitchell said: “Evidence of good character is admissible to support the original presumption of innocence, and is to go to the jury, and be considered by them, in connection with all the other evidence in the case.” In State v. Hutchinson, 121 Minn. 405 , , Judge Bunn said: “Evidence of good character goes to the probabilities of defendant’s guilt, and bears on the general question of guilty or not guilty.” In State v. Dolliver, 150 Minn. 155 , , J

And .as soon as you have determined the facts then * * * it is easy to write your verdict.” There is other language in the charge of the same general nature, and, basing some of his assignments of error upon it, defendant insists that he has a right to a new trial for error in the instructions such as was pointed out and condemned in State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , .

State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , .

We do not think the jury could have been misled into believing that they should convict, unless defendant proved his .possession to have *196 been legitimate so as to come within the condemnation of the rule stated in State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , .

An unreasonable story or explanation may be a true one, and a reasonable and plausible story or explanation may be a false one.” The language is in the main a quotation from the argument used by the court in State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , , to show that the test of reasonableness of the explanation, applied by the court below in the trial of that case, was fallacious.

Of course, if erroneous instructions are given, advantage thereof may be taken on the motion for a new trial, under our present practice, even though not excepted to at the trial, and that was the situation in State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , , and State v. Almos, 122 Minn. 479 , 142 N W. 801, relied on by defendant.

The eases relied on, State v. Sauer, 38 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , , are not in point.

We have held it unnecessary for defendant in a criminal action to except to instructions and that such must correctly state the law (State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , ); but it does not follow that, when represented 'by counsel, as in the present case, he may allow the court,, in its charge, to misstate his position without calling its attention to such' misapprehension, and then subsequently found error thereon.