State v. Marks

203 N.W.2d 344, 295 Minn. 530, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1146
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedDecember 22, 1972
DocketNo. 43527
StatusPublished

This text of 203 N.W.2d 344 (State v. Marks) 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. Marks, 203 N.W.2d 344, 295 Minn. 530, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1146 (Mich. 1972).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant contends on this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction of aggravated sodomy in violation of Minn. St. 609.293, subd. 2(3), that (1) the trial court erred in permitting the 84-year-old, German-speaking, male victim to testify and also in admitting corroborating testimony of a nurse; (2) as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict; and (3) defendant did not receive a fair trial because of the claimed failure to select an “impartial” jury and because the prosecutor committed prejudicial error in making an improper opening statement.

After a careful review of the record, we find no merit to these contentions. See State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73, 160 N. W. 2d 577 (1968), as to corroboration evidence in sex offenses; State v. Thieme, 281 Minn. 47, 160 N. W. 2d 396 (1968), as to challenging jurors; and A. B. A. Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function and the Defense [531]*531Function, Prosecution Function, § 5.5 (Approved Draft, 1971), as to the opening statement of the prosecutor.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Thieme
160 N.W.2d 396 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1968)
State v. Weigold
160 N.W.2d 577 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 N.W.2d 344, 295 Minn. 530, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marks-minn-1972.