State v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Anderson

319 N.W.2d 64, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1553

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 14, 1982

DocketNo. 81-899

StatusPublished

This text of 319 N.W.2d 64 (State v. Anderson) 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. Anderson, 319 N.W.2d 64, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1553 (Mich. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of simple robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.24 (1980), and was sentenced by the trial court to 30 months in prison, which is the presumptive sentence established by the Sentencing Guidelines for this offense by a defendant with a criminal history score of three. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence identifying him as the robber was legally insufficient and that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of certain evidence showing prior misconduct on his part. There is no merit to either contention. The victim positively identified defendant as the robber and there was strong corroborating evidence that defendant’s car was used in the robbery and police found a toy gun in defendant’s jacket similar to that used by the robber. The evidence to which defendant now objects was evidence which his own counsel elicited, apparently deliberately.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of simple robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.24 (1980), and was sentenced by the trial court to 30 months in prison, which is the presumptive sentence established by the Sentencing Guidelines for this offense by a defendant with a criminal history score of three. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence identifying him as the robber was legally insufficient and that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of certain evidence showing prior misconduct on his part. There is no merit to either contention. The victim positively identified defendant as the robber and there was strong corroborating evidence that defendant’s car was used in the robbery and police found a toy gun in defendant’s jacket similar to that used by the robber. The evidence to which defendant now objects was evidence which his own counsel elicited, apparently deliberately.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 N.W.2d 64, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-minn-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack