State v. Brunsberg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Brunsberg

201 N.W.2d 824, 294 Minn. 555, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1465

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 27, 1972

DocketNo. 42735

StatusPublished

This text of 201 N.W.2d 824 (State v. Brunsberg) 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. Brunsberg, 201 N.W.2d 824, 294 Minn. 555, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1465 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of indecent liberties, Minn. St. 609.296, subd. 1, contends on this appeal that (1) he met his burden of proving he was insane at the time he committed the act in question; (2) the trial court erred in limiting the scope of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and in instructing the jury; and (3) the prosecutor made a prejudicially improper closing argument to the jury. After careful consideration of the record and argument of counsel, we find none of these contentions merits discussion.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of indecent liberties, Minn. St. 609.296, subd. 1, contends on this appeal that (1) he met his burden of proving he was insane at the time he committed the act in question; (2) the trial court erred in limiting the scope of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and in instructing the jury; and (3) the prosecutor made a prejudicially improper closing argument to the jury. After careful consideration of the record and argument of counsel, we find none of these contentions merits discussion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 N.W.2d 824, 294 Minn. 555, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brunsberg-minn-1972.