State v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Brown

368 N.W.2d 12, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4193

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedMay 21, 1985

DocketC5-84-1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 368 N.W.2d 12 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Brown, 368 N.W.2d 12, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4193 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

WOZNIAK, Judge.

FACTS

Appellant LeRoy Brown was charged with criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.342(d) (1982), aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982), and burglary in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.582 (1982), for robbing and raping a Minneapolis woman in her apartment. In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that defense counsel’s attempt at criticizing the police investigation was a “smoke screen” and a “non-issue.” After jury deliberations, the jury sent back a note asking whether they could “convict on the testimony of the victim only and solely in a case such as rape?” The trial court, following discussion with counsel, answered “yes, you may, but only if you find that the State has proved the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Reasonable doubt instructions were then reread to the jury. Brown was convicted as charged and sentenced to concurrent terms of 132 months and 97 months for criminal sexual conduct and first degree burglary; no sentence was imposed for the aggravated robbery conviction pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (1982).

DECISION

1. Brown’s contention that the trial court’s response to the jury instruction was a misstatement of law and distortion of the burden of proof is without merit. The trial court’s response was consistent with Minn.Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (1982). See State v. Williams, 363 N.W.2d 911 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (jury instruction that testimony of complainant in sexual assault need not be corroborated not reversible error where jury was properly instructed on the burden of proof).

2. Brown’s contention that the prosecutor demeaned defense counsel in closing argument is without merit. Moreover, because no objection was made at the time, Brown forfeited his right to have this *14 issue considered on appeal. State v. Whisonant, 331 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn.1983).

Affirmed.

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

SUMMARY OPINION

WOZNIAK, Judge.

FACTS

Appellant LeRoy Brown was charged with criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.342(d) (1982), aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982), and burglary in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.582 (1982), for robbing and raping a Minneapolis woman in her apartment. In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that defense counsel’s attempt at criticizing the police investigation was a “smoke screen” and a “non-issue.” After jury deliberations, the jury sent back a note asking whether they could “convict on the testimony of the victim only and solely in a case such as rape?” The trial court, following discussion with counsel, answered “yes, you may, but only if you find that the State has proved the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Reasonable doubt instructions were then reread to the jury. Brown was convicted as charged and sentenced to concurrent terms of 132 months and 97 months for criminal sexual conduct and first degree burglary; no sentence was imposed for the aggravated robbery conviction pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (1982).

DECISION

1. Brown’s contention that the trial court’s response to the jury instruction was a misstatement of law and distortion of the burden of proof is without merit. The trial court’s response was consistent with Minn.Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (1982). See State v. Williams, 363 N.W.2d 911 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (jury instruction that testimony of complainant in sexual assault need not be corroborated not reversible error where jury was properly instructed on the burden of proof).

2. Brown’s contention that the prosecutor demeaned defense counsel in closing argument is without merit. Moreover, because no objection was made at the time, Brown forfeited his right to have this *14 issue considered on appeal. State v. Whisonant, 331 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn.1983).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 N.W.2d 12, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-minnctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack