State v. Butler

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Butler

295 N.W.2d 658, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1551

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 15, 1980

Docket50282

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 295 N.W.2d 658 (State v. Butler) 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. Butler, 295 N.W.2d 658, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1551 (Mich. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of three counts of burglary with tool, Minn.Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(l)(a) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum prison term of 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant raises a number of issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the adequacy of instructions. We affirm.

Defendant was caught and arrested as he fled from the scene of a drugstore burglary one week after the incident out of which the present charges against defendant arose. Evidence seized from defendant connected him to the burglaries with which we are concerned. The trial court also admitted, as Spreigl evidence, evidence concerning defendant’s participation in both the subsequent burglary and another drugstore burglary committed several months earlier. We are satisfied that the trial court did not prejudicially err in any of its evidentiary rulings, including the ruling admitting the Spreigl evidence, and the evidence of defendant’s guilt clearly was adequate to sustain the verdicts. Defendant did not object to the trial court’s instructions. Notwithstanding this, we could reverse if the instructions were misleading or confusing on fundamental points of law such as burden of proof and presumption of innocence. However, we are satisfied that the instructions were adequate in this respect.

Affirmed.

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

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of three counts of burglary with tool, Minn.Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(l)(a) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum prison term of 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant raises a number of issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the adequacy of instructions. We affirm.

Defendant was caught and arrested as he fled from the scene of a drugstore burglary one week after the incident out of which the present charges against defendant arose. Evidence seized from defendant connected him to the burglaries with which we are concerned. The trial court also admitted, as Spreigl evidence, evidence concerning defendant’s participation in both the subsequent burglary and another drugstore burglary committed several months earlier. We are satisfied that the trial court did not prejudicially err in any of its evidentiary rulings, including the ruling admitting the Spreigl evidence, and the evidence of defendant’s guilt clearly was adequate to sustain the verdicts. Defendant did not object to the trial court’s instructions. Notwithstanding this, we could reverse if the instructions were misleading or confusing on fundamental points of law such as burden of proof and presumption of innocence. However, we are satisfied that the instructions were adequate in this respect.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 N.W.2d 658, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-butler-minn-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack