City of St. Paul v. Mueller

Supreme Court of Minnesota

City of St. Paul v. Mueller

241 N.W.2d 487, 308 Minn. 461, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1796

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 23, 1976

DocketNo. 45842

StatusPublished

This text of 241 N.W.2d 487 (City of St. Paul v. Mueller) 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

City of St. Paul v. Mueller, 241 N.W.2d 487, 308 Minn. 461, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1796 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with petty theft in violation of St. Paul Legislative Code, § 426.01, and, after being convicted in municipal court, appealed to Ramsey County District Court where he received a trial de novo without a jury. On appeal from judgment of conviction entered in district court, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of guilt and that there was a fatal variance between the allegations in the complaint and the proof. After careful consideration, we affirm.

We do not believe there is any merit to the first issue. As to the [462]*462second issue, it appears that there was a variance in that the complaint charged defendant with stealing “six (6) boxes of razor blades” when the proof offered was that he took six cases of razors and blades which were packaged together. However, defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by this variance, as required by Minn. St. 628.19, and therefore it is not fatal to his conviction.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with petty theft in violation of St. Paul Legislative Code, § 426.01, and, after being convicted in municipal court, appealed to Ramsey County District Court where he received a trial de novo without a jury. On appeal from judgment of conviction entered in district court, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of guilt and that there was a fatal variance between the allegations in the complaint and the proof. After careful consideration, we affirm.

We do not believe there is any merit to the first issue. As to the [462]*462second issue, it appears that there was a variance in that the complaint charged defendant with stealing “six (6) boxes of razor blades” when the proof offered was that he took six cases of razors and blades which were packaged together. However, defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by this variance, as required by Minn. St. 628.19, and therefore it is not fatal to his conviction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W.2d 487, 308 Minn. 461, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-paul-v-mueller-minn-1976.