State v. Boggess

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Boggess

253 N.W.2d 146, 312 Minn. 598

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 15, 1977

DocketNo. 46340

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 N.W.2d 146 (State v. Boggess) 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. Boggess, 253 N.W.2d 146, 312 Minn. 598 (Mich. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated robbery for his role as driver of the getaway vehicle used in the robbery and was sentenced by the trial court to a 3- to 10-year term in prison, Minn.St.1974, §§ 609.11 and 609.245. In this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends (1) that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient as a matter of law; (2) that the trial court improperly assumed a partisan role primarily by interfering with defense counsel’s examination of witnesses even though the prosecutor had not objected; (3) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight and the use of a false name by defendant when arrested; and (4) that the prosecutor improperly introduced evidence rebutting [147]*147the testimony of one of the defense witnesses. There is no merit to the first issue, and defendant waived his right to raise the other issues by failing to object or otherwise raise them in the court below.

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 aggravated robbery for his role as driver of the getaway vehicle used in the robbery and was sentenced by the trial court to a 3- to 10-year term in prison, Minn.St.1974, §§ 609.11 and 609.245. In this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends (1) that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient as a matter of law; (2) that the trial court improperly assumed a partisan role primarily by interfering with defense counsel’s examination of witnesses even though the prosecutor had not objected; (3) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight and the use of a false name by defendant when arrested; and (4) that the prosecutor improperly introduced evidence rebutting [147]*147the testimony of one of the defense witnesses. There is no merit to the first issue, and defendant waived his right to raise the other issues by failing to object or otherwise raise them in the court below.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 N.W.2d 146, 312 Minn. 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boggess-minn-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack