State v. Freeman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Freeman

227 N.W.2d 826, 303 Minn. 567, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1588

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 4, 1975

DocketNo. 44691

StatusPublished

This text of 227 N.W.2d 826 (State v. Freeman) 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. Freeman, 227 N.W.2d 826, 303 Minn. 567, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1588 (Mich. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, found guilty by a district court jury of receiving or concealing stolen property, Minn. St. 1971, § 609.53, and sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate prison sentence of not more than 10 years and a fine of $10,000, appeals pro se from judgment of conviction, making numerous contentions including: (1) that the information was ambiguous and confusing; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting wiretap evidence; (3) that the trial court improperly admitted evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; (4) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of retail market value of stolen goods; (5) that there was insufficient evidence that certain of the property was stolen; (6) that the state illegally used paid informers to entrap him; and (7) that the state knowingly used perjured testimony to convict him.

We have reviewed the record carefully and discern no error. See, State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 83, 123 N. W. 2d 177, 182 (1963).

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Scott 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, found guilty by a district court jury of receiving or concealing stolen property, Minn. St. 1971, § 609.53, and sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate prison sentence of not more than 10 years and a fine of $10,000, appeals pro se from judgment of conviction, making numerous contentions including: (1) that the information was ambiguous and confusing; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting wiretap evidence; (3) that the trial court improperly admitted evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; (4) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of retail market value of stolen goods; (5) that there was insufficient evidence that certain of the property was stolen; (6) that the state illegally used paid informers to entrap him; and (7) that the state knowingly used perjured testimony to convict him.

We have reviewed the record carefully and discern no error. See, State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 83, 123 N. W. 2d 177, 182 (1963).

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 N.W.2d 826, 303 Minn. 567, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-freeman-minn-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack