In re Welfare of B. W.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re Welfare of B. W.

263 N.W.2d 638, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1409

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 17, 1978

DocketNo. 47815

StatusPublished

This text of 263 N.W.2d 638 (In re Welfare of B. W.) 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

In re Welfare of B. W., 263 N.W.2d 638, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1409 (Mich. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Juvenile Division of the Hennepin County District Court which affirmed the findings of a referee relating to appellant’s participation in the assault and robbery of another juvenile. The related issues on appeal are whether there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence identifying appellant as a participant in the assault and robbery, and whether the manner in which appellant was identified violated due process. We affirm.

The evidence indicated that a group of about ten older boys attacked and robbed the victim in a park after school, that the one who struck the victim had on silver-colored pants and shirt, that appellant was part of the group that attacked the victim, that he was the only one in the group wearing silver-colored clothing, and that the victim, although hesitant to identify anyone, positively identified the appellant within an hour after the incident. A consideration of all the relevant factors convinces us that there was no very substantial likelihood that this identification was erro[639]*639neous. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Juvenile Division of the Hennepin County District Court which affirmed the findings of a referee relating to appellant’s participation in the assault and robbery of another juvenile. The related issues on appeal are whether there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence identifying appellant as a participant in the assault and robbery, and whether the manner in which appellant was identified violated due process. We affirm.

The evidence indicated that a group of about ten older boys attacked and robbed the victim in a park after school, that the one who struck the victim had on silver-colored pants and shirt, that appellant was part of the group that attacked the victim, that he was the only one in the group wearing silver-colored clothing, and that the victim, although hesitant to identify anyone, positively identified the appellant within an hour after the incident. A consideration of all the relevant factors convinces us that there was no very substantial likelihood that this identification was erro[639]*639neous. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 N.W.2d 638, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-welfare-of-b-w-minn-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack