State v. Gunderson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Gunderson

296 N.W.2d 884, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1589

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 5, 1980

Docket50564

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 296 N.W.2d 884 (State v. Gunderson) 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. Gunderson, 296 N.W.2d 884, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1589 (Mich. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

TODD, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of burglary, Minn.Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(3) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a five-year prison term. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence of his participation in the burglary was legally insufficient and that the trial court abused its discretion in honoring a request by the jury for the rereading of part of the testimony of a key prosecution witness. There is no merit to the first contention. Defendant was seen leaving the burgled building and was apprehended a short time later. Defendant, by failing to object to the trial court’s response to the jury request, forfeited his right to have this court review the propriety of the trial court’s action. State v. Severson, 289 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 1980).

Affirmed.

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

TODD, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of burglary, Minn.Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(3) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a five-year prison term. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence of his participation in the burglary was legally insufficient and that the trial court abused its discretion in honoring a request by the jury for the rereading of part of the testimony of a key prosecution witness. There is no merit to the first contention. Defendant was seen leaving the burgled building and was apprehended a short time later. Defendant, by failing to object to the trial court’s response to the jury request, forfeited his right to have this court review the propriety of the trial court’s action. State v. Severson, 289 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 1980).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 N.W.2d 884, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gunderson-minn-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack