State v. Laird

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Laird

365 N.W.2d 249, 1985 Minn. LEXIS 1021

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 5, 1985

DocketNo. C0-82-1136

StatusPublished

This text of 365 N.W.2d 249 (State v. Laird) 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. Laird, 365 N.W.2d 249, 1985 Minn. LEXIS 1021 (Mich. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMONETT, Justice.

Defendant was charged with arson in the second degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.562 (1982), for intentionally setting fire to and thereby destroying his unoccupied residence on the afternoon of July 12, 1981. The first trial ended in a hung jury. The second jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to a stayed 21-month prison term, which is the presumptive sentence for the offense (severity level VI) by a person with defendant’s criminal history score (zero). Defendant’s appeal from judgment of conviction and from the order denying postconviction relief raises a large number of issues, including whether the evidence of his guilt was legally sufficient, whether the arson statute is unconstitutional on its face, whether the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct, whether the trial court erred in certain evidentiary rulings and in certain instructions, and whether defendant’s trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. None of the issues merits discussion. It is sufficient to say that our review of the record satisfies us that defendant received a fair trial and was properly found guilty of arson in the second degree.

Affirmed.

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

SIMONETT, Justice.

Defendant was charged with arson in the second degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.562 (1982), for intentionally setting fire to and thereby destroying his unoccupied residence on the afternoon of July 12, 1981. The first trial ended in a hung jury. The second jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to a stayed 21-month prison term, which is the presumptive sentence for the offense (severity level VI) by a person with defendant’s criminal history score (zero). Defendant’s appeal from judgment of conviction and from the order denying postconviction relief raises a large number of issues, including whether the evidence of his guilt was legally sufficient, whether the arson statute is unconstitutional on its face, whether the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct, whether the trial court erred in certain evidentiary rulings and in certain instructions, and whether defendant’s trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. None of the issues merits discussion. It is sufficient to say that our review of the record satisfies us that defendant received a fair trial and was properly found guilty of arson in the second degree.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 N.W.2d 249, 1985 Minn. LEXIS 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-laird-minn-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack