State v. Affeldt

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Affeldt

296 N.W.2d 429, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1555

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 15, 1980

DocketNo. 50264

StatusPublished

This text of 296 N.W.2d 429 (State v. Affeldt) 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

State v. Affeldt, 296 N.W.2d 429, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1555 (Mich. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of publishing a false statement relating to the value of corporate property with intent to defraud, Minn.Stat. § 609.645(1) (1976), and was placed on probation and ordered by the trial court to pay restitution. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, that the statute should be deemed to be void for vagueness, and that the trial court’s instructions failed to adequately inform the jury of the charge and the state’s burden of proof. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient. We are also satisfied that the statute is not void for vagueness. See generally W. LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law § 11 (1972). Defendant did not object to the trial court’s instructions. However, we note that the instructions, while not necessarily model ones, were adequate to inform the jury of the charge against defendant and the nature of the state’s burden of proof.

Affirmed.

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

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of publishing a false statement relating to the value of corporate property with intent to defraud, Minn.Stat. § 609.645(1) (1976), and was placed on probation and ordered by the trial court to pay restitution. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, that the statute should be deemed to be void for vagueness, and that the trial court’s instructions failed to adequately inform the jury of the charge and the state’s burden of proof. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient. We are also satisfied that the statute is not void for vagueness. See generally W. LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law § 11 (1972). Defendant did not object to the trial court’s instructions. However, we note that the instructions, while not necessarily model ones, were adequate to inform the jury of the charge against defendant and the nature of the state’s burden of proof.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 N.W.2d 429, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-affeldt-minn-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack