State v. Granger

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Granger

261 N.W.2d 335

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 18, 1977

DocketNo. 47134

StatusPublished

This text of 261 N.W.2d 335 (State v. Granger) 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. Granger, 261 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.St. 609.-342(c)(d), and was sentenced by the trial court to a limited maximum term of 7 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence to justify a verdict of guilty. There is no merit to this contention. Contrary to what defendant argues, corroboration of the complainant’s testimony was not required. Minn.St. 609.347, subd. 1, provides that “[i]n a prosecution under sections 609.-342 to 609.346, the testimony of the complainant need not be corroborated.” Even if there were a corroboration requirement, it would not have benefited defendant because the complainant’s testimony was in fact corroborated. State v. Ani, Minn., 257 N.W.2d 699 (1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.St. 609.-342(c)(d), and was sentenced by the trial court to a limited maximum term of 7 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence to justify a verdict of guilty. There is no merit to this contention. Contrary to what defendant argues, corroboration of the complainant’s testimony was not required. Minn.St. 609.347, subd. 1, provides that “[i]n a prosecution under sections 609.-342 to 609.346, the testimony of the complainant need not be corroborated.” Even if there were a corroboration requirement, it would not have benefited defendant because the complainant’s testimony was in fact corroborated. State v. Ani, Minn., 257 N.W.2d 699 (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 N.W.2d 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-granger-minn-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack