State v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Armstrong

233 N.W.2d 288, 305 Minn. 518, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1366

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 15, 1975

DocketNo. 44908

StatusPublished

This text of 233 N.W.2d 288 (State v. Armstrong) 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. Armstrong, 233 N.W.2d 288, 305 Minn. 518, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1366 (Mich. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, who was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of simple robbery, Minn. St. 609.24, and sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 10 years’ imprisonment, contends upon this appeal from judgment of conviction that there was, as a matter of law, insufficient reliable evidence identifying him as the robber. After considering this contention carefully, we affirm. Evidence against defendant included positive identification testimony by the victim, identification testimony by a bystander that he saw defendant run away from the scene of the robbery, evidence that defendant fit the general description of the robber given police, and evidence that defendant changed the alibi he gave police after the first alibi proved unsupportable. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the victim’s-identification testimony was unreliable as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, who was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of simple robbery, Minn. St. 609.24, and sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 10 years’ imprisonment, contends upon this appeal from judgment of conviction that there was, as a matter of law, insufficient reliable evidence identifying him as the robber. After considering this contention carefully, we affirm. Evidence against defendant included positive identification testimony by the victim, identification testimony by a bystander that he saw defendant run away from the scene of the robbery, evidence that defendant fit the general description of the robber given police, and evidence that defendant changed the alibi he gave police after the first alibi proved unsupportable. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the victim’s-identification testimony was unreliable as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 N.W.2d 288, 305 Minn. 518, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-armstrong-minn-1975.