State v. Horton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Horton

303 N.W.2d 62, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1207

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 20, 1981

DocketNo. 51478

StatusPublished

This text of 303 N.W.2d 62 (State v. Horton) 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. Horton, 303 N.W.2d 62, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1207 (Mich. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMONETT, Justice.

Defendant was charged with attempted second degree murder and with assault in the first degree but, after a jury trial, was found guilty only of the latter offense, Minn.Stat. § 609.221 (1980). The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison. Issues raised by defendant on his appeal from judgment of conviction are: (1) whether the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress statements defendant made to police in his house and later when he was in custody. We affirm.

Our examination of the records satisfies us that there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt and that he did not act in self-defense, as he claimed at trial.

The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the on-the-scene questioning of defendant which preceded the giving of the Miranda warning was noncustodial. State v. Palm, 299 N.W.2d 740 (Minn.1980); State v. Bekkerus, 297 N.W.2d 136 (Minn.1980). The subsequent custodial interrogation of defendant fully complied with all relevant constitutional requirements.

Affirmed.

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

SIMONETT, Justice.

Defendant was charged with attempted second degree murder and with assault in the first degree but, after a jury trial, was found guilty only of the latter offense, Minn.Stat. § 609.221 (1980). The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison. Issues raised by defendant on his appeal from judgment of conviction are: (1) whether the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress statements defendant made to police in his house and later when he was in custody. We affirm.

Our examination of the records satisfies us that there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt and that he did not act in self-defense, as he claimed at trial.

The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the on-the-scene questioning of defendant which preceded the giving of the Miranda warning was noncustodial. State v. Palm, 299 N.W.2d 740 (Minn.1980); State v. Bekkerus, 297 N.W.2d 136 (Minn.1980). The subsequent custodial interrogation of defendant fully complied with all relevant constitutional requirements.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 N.W.2d 62, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-horton-minn-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack