State v. Milosevich

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Stump

    254 Iowa 1181 (Iowa 1963)   Cited 51 times
    In State v. Stump, supra, 254 Iowa 1181, 119 N.W.2d 210 (1963), the court divided 5 to 3 with a vigorous dissent championing the dissenting point of view expressed in 1881 in Hamilton.

    21 S.W.2d 259 (Ky.); State v. Ardoin, 49 La. Ann. 1145, 22 So. 620, 62 Am. St. Rep. 678; State v. Molay, 174 La. 63, 139 So. 759; People v. Crofoot, 254 Mich. 167, 235 N.W. 883; People v. Marvill, 236 Mich. 595, 211 N.W. 23; State v. Stiel, 157 Minn. 461, 196 N.W. 490; State v. Armstead, 283 S.W.2d 577 (Mo.); State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 S.W. 449; State v. McClellan, 23 Mont. 532, 59 P. 924, 75 Am. St. Rep. 558; Hall v. State, 135 Neb. 188, 280 N.W. 847, 118 A.L.R. 1300; Peyton v. State, 54 Neb. 188, 74 N.W. 597; State v. Mucci, 25 N.J. 423, 136 A.2d 761; State v. Smith, 21 N.M. 173, 153 P. 256; Territory of New Mexico v. Tais, 14 N.M. 399, 94 P. 947; People v. Tapia, 11 App. Div. 2d 679, 201 N.Y.S.2d 984; People v. Russell, 266 N.Y. 147, 194 N.E. 65; State v. Foye, 254 N.C. 704, 120 S.E.2d 169; State v. Sheffield, 206 N.C. 374, 174 S.E. 105; State v. Nelson, 17 N.D. 13, 114 N.W. 478; Stevens v. State, 26 Ohio App. 53, 159 N.E. 834; Shoemaker v. Territory, 4 Okla. 118, 43 P. 1059; State v. Milosevich, 119 Or. 404, 249 P. 625; State v. Mayfield, 235 S.C. 11, 109 S.E.2d 716; State v. McGhee, 137 S.C. 256, 135 S.E. 59; State v. Chancey, 136 S.C. 305, 132 S.E. 824; Odeneal v. State, 128 Tenn. 60, 157 S.W. 419; Nichols v. State, 91 Tex.Crim. 277, 238 S.W. 232; Ayres v. State, 21 Tex. App. 399[ 21 Tex.Crim. 399] [ 21 Tex.Crim. 399], 17 S.W. 253; State v. Whitely, 100 Utah 14, 110 P.2d 337; State v. Parsons, 90 W. Va. 307, 110 S.E. 698; Fraccaro v. State, 189 Wis. 428, 207 N.W. 687; and Roen v. State, 182 Wis. 515, 196 N.W. 825. Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70, 16 S. Ct. 216, 40 L. Ed. 343; United States v. Vigorito, 67 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1933), certiorari denied, 290 U.S. 705, 54 S. Ct. 373, 78 L. Ed. 606; Falgout v. United States, 279 F. 513; McCool v. United States, 263 F. 55; Fielder v. United States, 227 F. 832; and Glover v. United States, 147 F. 426.

  2. Territory of Hawaii v. Ota

    36 Haw. 80 (Haw. 1942)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the adoption of a statute from another jurisdiction after said statute has been construed carries with it the construction placed upon it by the courts of the jurisdiction from which it is borrowed unless the imported construction is out of harmony with the spirit and policy of general legislation of the home State

    Requiring a defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence by any degree of proof is contrary to the weight of authority.Rayburn v. State, 63 S.W. (Ark.) 356; Lovejoy v. State, 36 S.W. (Ark.) 575; Hatch v. State, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113; Hawthorne v. State, 58 Miss. 778, 789; Bishop v. State, 62 Miss. 289; German v. U.S., 120 Fed. 666; State of Nevada v. McCluer, 5 Nev. 110; People v. Willett, 36 Hun. (N.Y.) 500; Boyd v. State, 136 Ga. 340, 71 S.E. 416; Cowherd v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 708, 120 P. 1021; Courtney v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 169, 152 P. 1134; Carter v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 164, 152 P. 1132; Nichols et al. v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 550, 135 P. 1071; Merriweather v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 420, 12 P.2d 707; State v. Montifoire, 95 Vt. 508, 116 A. 77; State v. Lundhigh, 30 Idaho 365, 164 P. 690; State v. Milosevich, 119 Ore. 404, 249 P. 625; State v. Radick, 119 Ore. 408, 249 P. 626; State v. McGhee, 135 S.E. (S.C.) 59; Fraccaro v. State, 189 Wis. 428, 207 N.W. 687; State v. Wilkerson, 164 N.C. 431, 79 S.E. 888; Hale v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 808, 183 S.E. 180.

  3. State v. Mendez

    57 Nev. 192 (Nev. 1936)   Cited 8 times
    In State v. Mendez the supreme court of Nevada said: "They claim, however, that the filing of an accurate description and plat of the lands so acquired, verified by the oath of some officer of the general government having knowledge of the facts, with the Governor of the state, was a mere ministerial act, the omission of which could not have affected the act of cession contemplated by the statute.

    In the second place, we contend that if we "go forward with the proof," to the extent of presenting some proof on the subject matter, then we feel that no burden of proof exists, and that if upon that issue we have raised a reasonable doubt, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. State v. McCluer, 5 Nev. 132; State v. Waterman, 1 Nev. 543; Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 40 L.Ed. 499; State v. Milosevich (Ore.), 249 P. 625; Jones v. State (Tex.), 257 S.W. 895; Garcia v. State (Tex.), 273 S.W. 845; Robison v. State (Tex.), 276 S.W. 259; Long v. State (Tex.), 283 S.W. 810; Ford v. State (Tex.), 285 S.W. 615; State v. Rouw (Wash.), 286 P. 81; People v. Post (Cal.), 281 P. 618; Duncan v. United States, 23 F.2d 3; Ezzard v. United States, 7 F.2d 808. Appellant complains because he was tried by a jury instead of by the court.

  4. State v. Radick

    249 P. 626 (Or. 1926)   Cited 1 times

    Both cases were tried before the same court and jury and involve the same question on appeal. In State v. Tony Milosevich, ante, p. 404 ( 249 P. 625), in an opinion this day rendered, the cause, on account of an erroneous instruction was reversed and remanded for a new trial. It follows that the same order will be entered herein. REVERSED AND REMANDED.