State v. Hollins

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Hollins

205 N.W.2d 329, 295 Minn. 583, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1358

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided March 16, 1973·No. No. 43390·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, who along with two codefendants was convicted by a district court jury of aggravated robbery, Minn. St. 609.245, contends on this appeal from judgment of conviction that (1) there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the verdict and (2) there were numerous errors occurring during the proceedings that deprived him of due process of law. We have carefully considered each contention and find each of them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, who along with two codefendants was convicted by a district court jury of aggravated robbery, Minn. St. 609.245, contends on this appeal from judgment of conviction that (1) there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the verdict and (2) there were numerous errors occurring during the proceedings that deprived him of due process of law. We have carefully considered each contention and find each of them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

State v. Hollins, 205 N.W.2d 329, 295 Minn. 583, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1358 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

205 N.W.2d 329 (State v. Hollins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.