State v. Harrington

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Harrington

238 N.W.2d 869, 307 Minn. 483, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1462

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 16, 1976·No. No. 45271·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of attempted burglary with a tool, Minn. St. 609.17 and 609.58, subd. 2(1) (a), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 10 years’ imprisonment. On this appeal from the judgment of conviction and the denial of a motion for a new trial, defendant contends that there was as a matter of law insufficient evidence to support the verdict and that he was denied due process when the trial court permitted the prosecution to elicit on cross-examination of defendant that he had been convicted of burglary 3 years earlier. After careful consideration, we affirm.

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 attempted burglary with a tool, Minn. St. 609.17 and 609.58, subd. 2(1) (a), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 10 years’ imprisonment. On this appeal from the judgment of conviction and the denial of a motion for a new trial, defendant contends that there was as a matter of law insufficient evidence to support the verdict and that he was denied due process when the trial court permitted the prosecution to elicit on cross-examination of defendant that he had been convicted of burglary 3 years earlier. After careful consideration, we affirm.

Affirmed.

State v. Harrington, 238 N.W.2d 869, 307 Minn. 483, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1462 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

238 N.W.2d 869 (State v. Harrington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.