State v. Palmer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Palmer

250 N.W.2d 171, 311 Minn. 554

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 7, 1977

DocketNo. 46204

StatusPublished

This text of 250 N.W.2d 171 (State v. Palmer) 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. Palmer, 250 N.W.2d 171, 311 Minn. 554 (Mich. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated assault and was sentenced by the trial court to a 3- to 5-year term at the state reformatory. Minn.St. 609.11, 609.225, subd. 2. Appealing from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence on the issue of identification and that he was denied due process (a) by the admission of evidence of a prior conviction and (b) by the manner in which the prosecutor referred in closing argument to this conviction. We affirm.

There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether it was defendant or his brother who committed the assault. The victim did not see who attacked him but his son did and he positively identified defendant. Also, the testimony of defendant’s brother implicated defendant. Although defendant introduced evidence to the contrary, we believe that the jury was justified in crediting the state’s witnesses and finding defendant guilty.

Defense counsel elicited on direct examination of defendant an admission that in 1972 defendant had been convicted of robbery in Texas. On cross-examination the prosecutor elicited testimony that the correct title of his prior offense was “robbery by assault.” Defense counsel did not object to this nor did he object to the manner in which the prosecutor referred to the conviction in closing argument. Thus, the defendant waived any right to contend on appeal that the admission of the evidence or the comment by the prosecutor violated his right to due process.

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 assault and was sentenced by the trial court to a 3- to 5-year term at the state reformatory. Minn.St. 609.11, 609.225, subd. 2. Appealing from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence on the issue of identification and that he was denied due process (a) by the admission of evidence of a prior conviction and (b) by the manner in which the prosecutor referred in closing argument to this conviction. We affirm.

There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether it was defendant or his brother who committed the assault. The victim did not see who attacked him but his son did and he positively identified defendant. Also, the testimony of defendant’s brother implicated defendant. Although defendant introduced evidence to the contrary, we believe that the jury was justified in crediting the state’s witnesses and finding defendant guilty.

Defense counsel elicited on direct examination of defendant an admission that in 1972 defendant had been convicted of robbery in Texas. On cross-examination the prosecutor elicited testimony that the correct title of his prior offense was “robbery by assault.” Defense counsel did not object to this nor did he object to the manner in which the prosecutor referred to the conviction in closing argument. Thus, the defendant waived any right to contend on appeal that the admission of the evidence or the comment by the prosecutor violated his right to due process.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 N.W.2d 171, 311 Minn. 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-palmer-minn-1977.