State v. Maki

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Maki

260 N.W.2d 294, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1328

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 18, 1977

DocketNo. 46841

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 N.W.2d 294 (State v. Maki) 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. Maki, 260 N.W.2d 294, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1328 (Mich. 1977).

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 to a l-to-20-year term in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that he should receive a new trial on the ground that the court failed to determine the constitutionality of a lineup at which he was identified and that if the court had done so, it would have had to conclude that the lineup was so unnecessarily suggestive as to deny him due process of law. We affirm.

Following the omnibus hearing, the court apparently did not specifically rule on defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence obtained in the lineup. However, defense counsel also apparently did not press the court for a ruling. In fact, at trial, when defense counsel sought an instruction directing the jury to disregard the identification testimony, the trial court asked defense counsel if the issue had not already been ruled on, and counsel replied that, at the omnibus hearing, the court had ruled on the matter of allowing the evidence to be suppressed.

Although in this case defendant was not prejudiced by a lack of findings, there being no conflict in the evidence at the omnibus hearing, we re-emphasize Rule 11.-07, Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides in part: “When issues are determined [at the omnibus hearing], the court shall make appropriate findings in writing or orally on the record.” (Italics supplied.)

We have analyzed the undisputed facts concerning the identification of defendant, and we conclude that although the lineup was possibly suggestive, there was no “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,” and, therefore, the identification testimony was a matter for the jury to weigh. See, 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).

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 to a l-to-20-year term in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that he should receive a new trial on the ground that the court failed to determine the constitutionality of a lineup at which he was identified and that if the court had done so, it would have had to conclude that the lineup was so unnecessarily suggestive as to deny him due process of law. We affirm.

Following the omnibus hearing, the court apparently did not specifically rule on defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence obtained in the lineup. However, defense counsel also apparently did not press the court for a ruling. In fact, at trial, when defense counsel sought an instruction directing the jury to disregard the identification testimony, the trial court asked defense counsel if the issue had not already been ruled on, and counsel replied that, at the omnibus hearing, the court had ruled on the matter of allowing the evidence to be suppressed.

Although in this case defendant was not prejudiced by a lack of findings, there being no conflict in the evidence at the omnibus hearing, we re-emphasize Rule 11.-07, Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides in part: “When issues are determined [at the omnibus hearing], the court shall make appropriate findings in writing or orally on the record.” (Italics supplied.)

We have analyzed the undisputed facts concerning the identification of defendant, and we conclude that although the lineup was possibly suggestive, there was no “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,” and, therefore, the identification testimony was a matter for the jury to weigh. See, 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).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 N.W.2d 294, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maki-minn-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack