State v. Kallestad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Kallestad

206 N.W.2d 557, 296 Minn. 483, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1233

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 13, 1973

Docket43520, 43803

StatusPublished

This text of 206 N.W.2d 557 (State v. Kallestad) 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. Kallestad, 206 N.W.2d 557, 296 Minn. 483, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1233 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These are consolidated appeals from a conviction for taking indecent liberties in violation of Minn. St. 609.296, subd. 1(2), and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. He was tried without a jury and sentenced to a term not exceeding 4 years in prison. After being committed for approximately 7 weeks, he was released on bail pending the disposition of this appeal.

A number of issues are raised by defendant. The principal thrust of his appeal is the claim that his guilt has not been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

A thorough consideration of the record by this court sitting en banc leads us to the conclusion that the interests of justice require a new trial. We are conscious of the need for restraint in reversing criminal convictions. State v. Kemp, 272 Minn. 447, 450, 138 N. W. 2d 610, 612 (1965). Nevertheless, where we entertain grave doubts as to defendant's guilt, it is our duty to grant a new trial. State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 375, 152 N. W. 2d 529, 533 (1967). As we suggested in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 261, 170 N. W. 2d 104, 116 (1969), upon a retrial defendant may wish to submit the issues to a jury.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam.

These are consolidated appeals from a conviction for taking indecent liberties in violation of Minn. St. 609.296, subd. 1(2), and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. He was tried without a jury and sentenced to a term not exceeding 4 years in prison. After being committed for approximately 7 weeks, he was released on bail pending the disposition of this appeal.

A number of issues are raised by defendant. The principal thrust of his appeal is the claim that his guilt has not been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

A thorough consideration of the record by this court sitting en banc leads us to the conclusion that the interests of justice require a new trial. We are conscious of the need for restraint in reversing criminal convictions. State v. Kemp, 272 Minn. 447, 450, 138 N. W. 2d 610, 612 (1965). Nevertheless, where we entertain grave doubts as to defendant's guilt, it is our duty to grant a new trial. State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 375, 152 N. W. 2d 529, 533 (1967). As we suggested in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 261, 170 N. W. 2d 104, 116 (1969), upon a retrial defendant may wish to submit the issues to a jury.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 N.W.2d 557, 296 Minn. 483, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kallestad-minn-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack