State v. Bartell

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Bartell

281 N.W.2d 722, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1620

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 13, 1979

DocketNo. 48642

StatusPublished

This text of 281 N.W.2d 722 (State v. Bartell) 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. Bartell, 281 N.W.2d 722, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1620 (Mich. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of charges of possession of marijuana, sale of marijuana, and aggravated assault (assault with a dangerous weapon but without causing great bodily harm). The trial court sentenced defendant to three concurrent prison terms — 3 years for possession of marijuana, 5 for the sale of marijuana, and 1 to 5 for aggravated assault — but later vacated the sentence for possessing marijuana. On this direct appeal from judgment of conviction defendant challenges only his conviction of aggravated assault, claiming that the testimony of the two undercover narcotics officers on which his conviction of aggravated assault was based was testimony which as a matter of law the jury was not free to credit. A recitation of the evidence supporting the conviction would serve no useful purpose. We believe it is sufficient to say that our examination of the record reveals that there was a dispute in the evidence as to whether the assault was committed and the resolution of this dispute was properly for the jury.

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 charges of possession of marijuana, sale of marijuana, and aggravated assault (assault with a dangerous weapon but without causing great bodily harm). The trial court sentenced defendant to three concurrent prison terms — 3 years for possession of marijuana, 5 for the sale of marijuana, and 1 to 5 for aggravated assault — but later vacated the sentence for possessing marijuana. On this direct appeal from judgment of conviction defendant challenges only his conviction of aggravated assault, claiming that the testimony of the two undercover narcotics officers on which his conviction of aggravated assault was based was testimony which as a matter of law the jury was not free to credit. A recitation of the evidence supporting the conviction would serve no useful purpose. We believe it is sufficient to say that our examination of the record reveals that there was a dispute in the evidence as to whether the assault was committed and the resolution of this dispute was properly for the jury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 N.W.2d 722, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bartell-minn-1979.