State v. Esmailzadeh

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Esmailzadeh

312 N.W.2d 117, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1499

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 13, 1981

DocketNo. 51841

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 312 N.W.2d 117 (State v. Esmailzadeh) 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. Esmailzadeh, 312 N.W.2d 117, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1499 (Mich. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

AMDAHL, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of aggravated robbery, Minn. Stat. § 609.245 (1980), and was sentenced by the trial court to 3 to 20 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of identification. We affirm.

We recently stated in State v. Walker, 310 N.W.2d 89 (Minn.1981), that not all single eyewitness identification cases are the same, and we emphasized that when the single witness’ identification of a defendant is made after only limited observation, corroboration is required if we are to sustain the conviction. Id. See State v. Spann, 287 N.W.2d 406, 407-8 (Minn.1979).

In this case two men, one with a gun, robbed a small liquor store. Only one person, a joint owner of the store, witnessed [118]*118the robbery. She described the two men to police and said she felt she would be able to identify them if she saw them again. The next day she identified defendant’s picture from six pictures shown her. The day after that defendant was arrested along with one Timothy Becker. The store owner viewed a new photographic display containing a picture of Becker and a new one of defendant. She confirmed her identification of defendant and identified Becker as being the other robber, and identified a hat found in the car in which the two men were riding as being indistinguishable from the hat the gunman wore.

Holding that the identification testimony of the victim was reliable and that it was corroborated by the discovery of the hat and by the fact that the other man she identified was arrested with defendant, a fact she did not know, we conclude that the evidence of defendant’s guilt was sufficient.

Affirmed.

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

AMDAHL, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of aggravated robbery, Minn. Stat. § 609.245 (1980), and was sentenced by the trial court to 3 to 20 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of identification. We affirm.

We recently stated in State v. Walker, 310 N.W.2d 89 (Minn.1981), that not all single eyewitness identification cases are the same, and we emphasized that when the single witness’ identification of a defendant is made after only limited observation, corroboration is required if we are to sustain the conviction. Id. See State v. Spann, 287 N.W.2d 406, 407-8 (Minn.1979).

In this case two men, one with a gun, robbed a small liquor store. Only one person, a joint owner of the store, witnessed [118]*118the robbery. She described the two men to police and said she felt she would be able to identify them if she saw them again. The next day she identified defendant’s picture from six pictures shown her. The day after that defendant was arrested along with one Timothy Becker. The store owner viewed a new photographic display containing a picture of Becker and a new one of defendant. She confirmed her identification of defendant and identified Becker as being the other robber, and identified a hat found in the car in which the two men were riding as being indistinguishable from the hat the gunman wore.

Holding that the identification testimony of the victim was reliable and that it was corroborated by the discovery of the hat and by the fact that the other man she identified was arrested with defendant, a fact she did not know, we conclude that the evidence of defendant’s guilt was sufficient.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 N.W.2d 117, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-esmailzadeh-minn-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack