State v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Anderson

494 N.W.2d 876, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 8, 1993 WL 9743

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 15, 1993

DocketNo. C2-92-1026

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 494 N.W.2d 876 (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, 494 N.W.2d 876, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 8, 1993 WL 9743 (Mich. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Harvey Dwight Anderson for further review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming his conviction of criminal damage to property in the first degree be, and the same is, denied. Petitioner argued in the court of appeals that there was insufficient evidence that he intentionally damaged a $1,000 two-way radio which he grabbed from a security officer and threw in a lake when the security officer told him to leave property belonging to the security officer’s employer. The court of appeals’ decision contains language suggesting that petitioner was “presumed” to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his grabbing the radio from the officer and throwing it. What the court of appeals should have said is that the trial court, as finder of fact in this case (petitioner waived a jury trial), was free to “infer” petitioner’s intent to damage the property from the evidence of what petitioner said and did.

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

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Harvey Dwight Anderson for further review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming his conviction of criminal damage to property in the first degree be, and the same is, denied. Petitioner argued in the court of appeals that there was insufficient evidence that he intentionally damaged a $1,000 two-way radio which he grabbed from a security officer and threw in a lake when the security officer told him to leave property belonging to the security officer’s employer. The court of appeals’ decision contains language suggesting that petitioner was “presumed” to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his grabbing the radio from the officer and throwing it. What the court of appeals should have said is that the trial court, as finder of fact in this case (petitioner waived a jury trial), was free to “infer” petitioner’s intent to damage the property from the evidence of what petitioner said and did.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 N.W.2d 876, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 8, 1993 WL 9743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-minn-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack