State v. James Pettit

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. James Pettit

202 N.W.2d 661, 295 Minn. 509, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1130

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 24, 1972

DocketNo. 42937

StatusPublished

This text of 202 N.W.2d 661 (State v. James Pettit) 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. James Pettit, 202 N.W.2d 661, 295 Minn. 509, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1130 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, charged with aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and convicted of simple robbery under Minn. St. 609.24 after a jury trial, contends on this appeal from the judgment of conviction that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in his instructions and that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts when it found him not guilty of conspiracy but guilty of robbery.

Defendant’s first contention does not merit discussion inasmuch as the record indicates that the instructions could not have prejudiced defendant and also that defense counsel did not object to the instructions and did assent to them.

As for the second contention, we find that the verdicts are not inconsistent and that the record indicates sufficient evidence to show defendant’s participation in the robbery. He spent all afternoon and eve[510]*510ning with the codefendants and drove the car to and from the scene of the crime. There is ample evidence to sustain his conviction.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, charged with aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and convicted of simple robbery under Minn. St. 609.24 after a jury trial, contends on this appeal from the judgment of conviction that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in his instructions and that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts when it found him not guilty of conspiracy but guilty of robbery.

Defendant’s first contention does not merit discussion inasmuch as the record indicates that the instructions could not have prejudiced defendant and also that defense counsel did not object to the instructions and did assent to them.

As for the second contention, we find that the verdicts are not inconsistent and that the record indicates sufficient evidence to show defendant’s participation in the robbery. He spent all afternoon and eve[510]*510ning with the codefendants and drove the car to and from the scene of the crime. There is ample evidence to sustain his conviction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 N.W.2d 661, 295 Minn. 509, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-james-pettit-minn-1972.