State v. Guskey

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Guskey

330 N.W.2d 121, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1064

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 4, 1983

DocketNo. C2-82-134

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 330 N.W.2d 121 (State v. Guskey) 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. Guskey, 330 N.W.2d 121, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1064 (Mich. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

TODD, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to 54 months in prison pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5 (1982) and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant seeks an outright reversal of his conviction on the ground that the evidence identifying him as the robber was legally insufficient. Alternatively, he seeks a new trial on a number of grounds. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized incident to an arrest that he contends was unlawful and erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony on the ground that it was the product of unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures. He also argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to bar the state from cross-examining him about a prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. He contends further that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the lesser offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying a jury request to have the testimony of one witness reread. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error.

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 a charge of aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to 54 months in prison pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5 (1982) and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant seeks an outright reversal of his conviction on the ground that the evidence identifying him as the robber was legally insufficient. Alternatively, he seeks a new trial on a number of grounds. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized incident to an arrest that he contends was unlawful and erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony on the ground that it was the product of unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures. He also argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to bar the state from cross-examining him about a prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. He contends further that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the lesser offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying a jury request to have the testimony of one witness reread. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 N.W.2d 121, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-guskey-minn-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack