State v. Harris

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Harris

255 N.W.2d 831, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1545

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 17, 1977

Docket46336

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 N.W.2d 831 (State v. Harris) 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. Harris, 255 N.W.2d 831, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1545 (Mich. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of selling amphetamines to an undercover narcotics agent and was sentenced by the trial court to a 3-year term in prison, with execution stayed on the condition that defendant spend 6 months in the county jail followed by probation. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in admitting the amphetamines because the state did not establish a sufficient chain of custody and (2) that the trial court erred in its instructions on the allocation of the burden of proof with respect to the defense of entrapment. There is no merit to the first contention. See, State v. Johnson, Minn., 239 N.W.2d 239 (1976). Since defense counsel not only did not object to the instructions but requested instructions similar to those the court gave, we must hold that defendant waived the second issue.

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 selling amphetamines to an undercover narcotics agent and was sentenced by the trial court to a 3-year term in prison, with execution stayed on the condition that defendant spend 6 months in the county jail followed by probation. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in admitting the amphetamines because the state did not establish a sufficient chain of custody and (2) that the trial court erred in its instructions on the allocation of the burden of proof with respect to the defense of entrapment. There is no merit to the first contention. See, State v. Johnson, Minn., 239 N.W.2d 239 (1976). Since defense counsel not only did not object to the instructions but requested instructions similar to those the court gave, we must hold that defendant waived the second issue.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 N.W.2d 831, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harris-minn-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack