State v. Reed

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Reed

192 N.W.2d 183, 291 Minn. 539, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1078

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 12, 1971

DocketNo. 42338

StatusPublished

This text of 192 N.W.2d 183 (State v. Reed) 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. Reed, 192 N.W.2d 183, 291 Minn. 539, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1078 (Mich. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction following a jury verdict of guilty on a charge of aiding and abetting the crime of having sexual intercourse with a child. Minn. St. 609.295 (3) and 609.05, subd. 1. Defendant asserts error, contending that (a) the conviction was secured through testimony of accomplices; (b) the evidence established abandonment of or withdrawal from commission of the offense; and (c) he was denied a fair trial because the jury was not impartial.

The asserted errors, viewed in context of the record, are without merit. Even though some of the witnesses who testified might be considered accomplices, there was sufficient other evidence to sustain the verdict. Minn. St. 634.04; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 127 N. W. 2d 534 (1964); State v. Smith, 264 Minn. 307, 119 N. W. 2d 838 (1962). There was also sufficient evidence to establish that defendant was not entitled to the defense that he withdrew from participation in the offense before it was actually committed. Section 609.05, subd. 3; State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N. W. 2d 389 (1964). Nor does the record indicate bias or prejudice on the part of the jury despite the fact that some jurors may have read certain newspaper accounts or had some acquaintance with prosecutive personnel.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction following a jury verdict of guilty on a charge of aiding and abetting the crime of having sexual intercourse with a child. Minn. St. 609.295 (3) and 609.05, subd. 1. Defendant asserts error, contending that (a) the conviction was secured through testimony of accomplices; (b) the evidence established abandonment of or withdrawal from commission of the offense; and (c) he was denied a fair trial because the jury was not impartial.

The asserted errors, viewed in context of the record, are without merit. Even though some of the witnesses who testified might be considered accomplices, there was sufficient other evidence to sustain the verdict. Minn. St. 634.04; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 127 N. W. 2d 534 (1964); State v. Smith, 264 Minn. 307, 119 N. W. 2d 838 (1962). There was also sufficient evidence to establish that defendant was not entitled to the defense that he withdrew from participation in the offense before it was actually committed. Section 609.05, subd. 3; State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N. W. 2d 389 (1964). Nor does the record indicate bias or prejudice on the part of the jury despite the fact that some jurors may have read certain newspaper accounts or had some acquaintance with prosecutive personnel.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.W.2d 183, 291 Minn. 539, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reed-minn-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack