State v. Dingfelder

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Dingfelder

204 N.W.2d 447, 295 Minn. 561, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1344

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 9, 1973

DocketNo. 43475

StatusPublished

This text of 204 N.W.2d 447 (State v. Dingfelder) 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. Dingfelder, 204 N.W.2d 447, 295 Minn. 561, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1344 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We hold, in affirming defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape, Minn. St. 609.291, that there was sufficient credible evidence to sustain the conviction and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s pretrial motion for a change of venue or in admitting photographs of the victim, taken 2 days after the incident, which showed the bruised condition of her body.

With respect to the first issue, we rely on, among other cases, State v. McGlynn, 292 Minn. 405, 195 N. W. 2d 583 (1972); State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 189 N. W. 2d 170 (1971); State v. Artez, 286 Minn. 545, 176 N. W. 2d 81 (1970). With respect to the denial of the change of venue motion, see, State v. Annis, 291 Minn. 552, 192 N. W. 2d 419 (1971). On the issue of admissibility of the photographs, see, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 194 N. W. 2d 590 (1972), and State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N. W. 785 (1939).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We hold, in affirming defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape, Minn. St. 609.291, that there was sufficient credible evidence to sustain the conviction and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s pretrial motion for a change of venue or in admitting photographs of the victim, taken 2 days after the incident, which showed the bruised condition of her body.

With respect to the first issue, we rely on, among other cases, State v. McGlynn, 292 Minn. 405, 195 N. W. 2d 583 (1972); State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 189 N. W. 2d 170 (1971); State v. Artez, 286 Minn. 545, 176 N. W. 2d 81 (1970). With respect to the denial of the change of venue motion, see, State v. Annis, 291 Minn. 552, 192 N. W. 2d 419 (1971). On the issue of admissibility of the photographs, see, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 194 N. W. 2d 590 (1972), and State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N. W. 785 (1939).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 N.W.2d 447, 295 Minn. 561, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dingfelder-minn-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack