State v. Meaney

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Meaney

290 N.W.2d 180, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1324

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 7, 1980

DocketNo. 49850

StatusPublished

This text of 290 N.W.2d 180 (State v. Meaney) 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. Meaney, 290 N.W.2d 180, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1324 (Mich. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

YETKA, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated assault, Minn.Stat. § 609.225, subd. 1 (1978) (intentional infliction of great bodily harm), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of ten years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that (1) his conviction should be reversed outright on the ground that the evidence on the issue of identification was legally insufficient or (2) he should be granted a new trial on the ground that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting certain evidence on the issue of great bodily harm. Our examination of the record shows that the victim of the assault positively identified defendant as his assailant and that there was other evidence strongly corroborating this identification. Defense counsel, by failing to object at trial, must be deemed to have forfeited his right to have the issue of the admissibility of evidence bearing on the severity of the injury considered on appeal. We therefore affirm!

Affirmed.

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

YETKA, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated assault, Minn.Stat. § 609.225, subd. 1 (1978) (intentional infliction of great bodily harm), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of ten years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that (1) his conviction should be reversed outright on the ground that the evidence on the issue of identification was legally insufficient or (2) he should be granted a new trial on the ground that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting certain evidence on the issue of great bodily harm. Our examination of the record shows that the victim of the assault positively identified defendant as his assailant and that there was other evidence strongly corroborating this identification. Defense counsel, by failing to object at trial, must be deemed to have forfeited his right to have the issue of the admissibility of evidence bearing on the severity of the injury considered on appeal. We therefore affirm!

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 N.W.2d 180, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-meaney-minn-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack