State v. Barness

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Barness

200 N.W.2d 300, 294 Minn. 507, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1446

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 4, 1972

Docket43397

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 200 N.W.2d 300 (State v. Barness) 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. Barness, 200 N.W.2d 300, 294 Minn. 507, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1446 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery committed on December 25, 1970, against one Ronald Buerkle, the proprietor of a grocery store in Anoka. We affirm.

*508 1. Defendant raises the issue of identification, complaining that the lineup, photographic identification, and in-court identification were not reliable and that, by virtue of alibi witnesses, defendant’s guilt has not been established. We find no merit in these contentions. The victim had ample time to observe the robber and supported his identification by noticing particularly that the robber was suffering from a conspicuously injured thumb. Although defendant claimed the injury occurred after the robbery, there was credible evidence that he had in fact sustained it on the previous Thanksgiving Day.

2. In cross-examining a defense witness, the prosecutor elicited the following testimony:

“Q. All right. The defendant never discussed any of these things with you such as he has set forth in this letter?

“A. No. He just said that — just discussed that he had a raw deal the first time and that he wasn’t about to go back again.

“Q. He never talked about any of these things like this with you?

“A. Not to me, no.

“Q. You said he got a raw deal what?

“A. He said he was falsely convicted before.”

Defendant did not take the stand and argues that he was denied a fair trial by the disclosure of a prior conviction. Had the prosecutor intentionally revealed defendant’s prior record, we would reverse. However, there was no showing that the prosecutor anticipated the answer he received, and we are satisfied it was volunteered without any knowledge on his part that it was forthcoming.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery committed on December 25, 1970, against one Ronald Buerkle, the proprietor of a grocery store in Anoka. We affirm.

*508 1. Defendant raises the issue of identification, complaining that the lineup, photographic identification, and in-court identification were not reliable and that, by virtue of alibi witnesses, defendant’s guilt has not been established. We find no merit in these contentions. The victim had ample time to observe the robber and supported his identification by noticing particularly that the robber was suffering from a conspicuously injured thumb. Although defendant claimed the injury occurred after the robbery, there was credible evidence that he had in fact sustained it on the previous Thanksgiving Day.

2. In cross-examining a defense witness, the prosecutor elicited the following testimony:

“Q. All right. The defendant never discussed any of these things with you such as he has set forth in this letter?

“A. No. He just said that — just discussed that he had a raw deal the first time and that he wasn’t about to go back again.

“Q. He never talked about any of these things like this with you?

“A. Not to me, no.

“Q. You said he got a raw deal what?

“A. He said he was falsely convicted before.”

Defendant did not take the stand and argues that he was denied a fair trial by the disclosure of a prior conviction. Had the prosecutor intentionally revealed defendant’s prior record, we would reverse. However, there was no showing that the prosecutor anticipated the answer he received, and we are satisfied it was volunteered without any knowledge on his part that it was forthcoming.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 N.W.2d 300, 294 Minn. 507, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barness-minn-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack