Cited by

State v. Fournier, 108 Minn. 402 , *444 ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Abdo, 165 Minn. 440 , .

The historical development of our homicide statute is traced in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285, 291 , , where it is said: “In other words, since the penal code murder in the third degree may be committed in two ways.

See State v. Miller, 151 Minn. 386 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Taylor, 144 Minn. 377 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , ; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , .

See State v. Johnson, 114 Minn. 493 , ; State v. Taylor, 144 Minn. 377 , ; State v. Morgan, 146 Minn. 197 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .

The suggestion that this line of proof tended to show the trait of character of the defendant indicated by the crime charged is fully answered in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285, 297, 298 , .

The general question of the degrees of homicide had recent consideration in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .

Speaking of our own statute, in State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , , it was said it was intended to cover cases where reckless, mischievous or wanton acts were committed without special regard to their effect on a particular person,- but with a reckless-disregard of whether they injured one person or another; and in *146 State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , , tbat it involves an unintentional killing without a special design upon a particular person by an act eminently dangerous to others, evincing a min

That evidence of such character is not competent was held in State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , , a homicide case, and has been held in other classes of clases.

State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .

This rule was considered and applied in the recent case of State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , , where the authorities were considered and the reason for the rule indicated.

Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; Underhill, Crim.