Schatzle v. State
This text of 210 N.W.2d 50 (Schatzle 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.
Opinion
Defendant, found guilty by a district court jury of aggravated assault, Minn. St. 609.225, subd. 1, and sentenced to imprisonment according to law, contends on this appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief that his trial counsel did not adequately represent him in that he failed to use a prior allegedly inconsistent statement to impeach the key prosecution witness’s testimony. We affirm the order.
The witness’s prior statement was not, as defendant alleges, inconsistent with the witness’s trial testimony. We therefore have no difficulty in rejecting defendant’s contention that his trial counsel did not adequately represent him.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
210 N.W.2d 50, 297 Minn. 503, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schatzle-v-state-minn-1973.