State v. Lambert

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Lambert

278 N.W.2d 57, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1436

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 16, 1979

Docket48650

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 N.W.2d 57 (State v. Lambert) 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. Lambert, 278 N.W.2d 57, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1436 (Mich. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated robbery, Minn.St. 609.245, and was sentenced by the trial court to a limited maximum term of 5 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant challenges the fairness of the identification procedures used and the legal sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. We affirm.

The test which is used in cases in which there is a claim of identification tainted by allegedly suggestive identification procedures is that set forth and explicated in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). The focus of the test is the reliability of the identification, and all the relevant factors are considered (along with the suggestiveness of the procedures used) in determining whether there was a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Applying this test, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting either the pretrial or the in-court identification testimony. Since the eyewitness identification testimony was properly admitted, there is no merit to defendant’s contention that the identification evidence was legally insufficient.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated robbery, Minn.St. 609.245, and was sentenced by the trial court to a limited maximum term of 5 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant challenges the fairness of the identification procedures used and the legal sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. We affirm.

The test which is used in cases in which there is a claim of identification tainted by allegedly suggestive identification procedures is that set forth and explicated in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). The focus of the test is the reliability of the identification, and all the relevant factors are considered (along with the suggestiveness of the procedures used) in determining whether there was a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Applying this test, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting either the pretrial or the in-court identification testimony. Since the eyewitness identification testimony was properly admitted, there is no merit to defendant’s contention that the identification evidence was legally insufficient.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 N.W.2d 57, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lambert-minn-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack