State v. Frank

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Frank

199 N.W.2d 155, 293 Minn. 525, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1276

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 23, 1972

DocketNo. 42775

StatusPublished

This text of 199 N.W.2d 155 (State v. Frank) 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. Frank, 199 N.W.2d 155, 293 Minn. 525, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1276 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated rape. Minn. St. 609.291(1). The sole issue raised is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilt. We affirm.

The question before us is whether the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty of the offense charged. If the jury, with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proved guilty, this court will not disturb its verdict. There is competent and substantial evidence in this case which supports the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated rape. Minn. St. 609.291(1). The sole issue raised is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilt. We affirm.

The question before us is whether the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty of the offense charged. If the jury, with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proved guilty, this court will not disturb its verdict. There is competent and substantial evidence in this case which supports the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 N.W.2d 155, 293 Minn. 525, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frank-minn-1972.