State v. Hegna

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Hegna

274 N.W.2d 504, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1373

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 12, 1979

DocketNo. 47769

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 N.W.2d 504 (State v. Hegna) 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. Hegna, 274 N.W.2d 504, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1373 (Mich. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a Mower County District Court jury of charges of aggravated assault, Minn.St. 609.225, subd. 1, and criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, Minn.St. 609.-343(c) and (e)(i), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of 15 years in prison. Issues raised by defendant on this direct appeal relate to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and to the admission of certain evidence, primarily eyewitness identification testimony and evidence of statements defendant made to the police after he was arrested. No useful purpose [505]*505would be served by reciting the facts or discussing the issues in detail. We conclude that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in any of its evidentiary rulings and that the evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong.

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 Mower County District Court jury of charges of aggravated assault, Minn.St. 609.225, subd. 1, and criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, Minn.St. 609.-343(c) and (e)(i), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of 15 years in prison. Issues raised by defendant on this direct appeal relate to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and to the admission of certain evidence, primarily eyewitness identification testimony and evidence of statements defendant made to the police after he was arrested. No useful purpose [505]*505would be served by reciting the facts or discussing the issues in detail. We conclude that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in any of its evidentiary rulings and that the evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 N.W.2d 504, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hegna-minn-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack