Anderson v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Anderson v. State

219 N.W.2d 436, 300 Minn. 530, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1388

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 7, 1974

DocketNo. 44367

StatusPublished

This text of 219 N.W.2d 436 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 219 N.W.2d 436, 300 Minn. 530, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1388 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief. Petitioner, seeking a new trial on the attempted aggravated rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated robbery charges of which he was convicted, contends (1) that certain physical evidence should have been suppressed on the ground that it was the fruit of an illegal arrest, (2) that the victim should not have been permitted to give identification testimony because that testimony was tainted by an illegal showup held within an hour and a half or so after the offense and moments after the arrest, and (3) that his privately retained counsel did not represent him adequately.

We have carefully considered the issues raised by appellant and find no violation of his constitutional rights in these proceedings.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief. Petitioner, seeking a new trial on the attempted aggravated rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated robbery charges of which he was convicted, contends (1) that certain physical evidence should have been suppressed on the ground that it was the fruit of an illegal arrest, (2) that the victim should not have been permitted to give identification testimony because that testimony was tainted by an illegal showup held within an hour and a half or so after the offense and moments after the arrest, and (3) that his privately retained counsel did not represent him adequately.

We have carefully considered the issues raised by appellant and find no violation of his constitutional rights in these proceedings.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 N.W.2d 436, 300 Minn. 530, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-minn-1974.