State v. Sybrant

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Sybrant

472 N.W.2d 639, 1991 Minn. LEXIS 258, 1991 WL 151387

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 1, 1991

DocketNo. C9-90-1908

StatusPublished

This text of 472 N.W.2d 639 (State v. Sybrant) 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. Sybrant, 472 N.W.2d 639, 1991 Minn. LEXIS 258, 1991 WL 151387 (Mich. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

[640]*640IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Joseph LeRoy Sybrant for further review be, and the same is, denied.

MEMORANDUM

The court of appeals in its opinion neglected to address one of the issues raised by petitioner in his appeal to the court of appeals, specifically, whether the trial court, in excluding certain evidence presented by the defense, denied petitioner his right to present evidence in his defense. Rather than grant the petition and remand to the court of appeals, we have addressed this issue in our consideration of the petition for review and have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the evidentiary rulings in question.

WAHL, J., took no part.

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

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

[640]*640IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Joseph LeRoy Sybrant for further review be, and the same is, denied.

MEMORANDUM

The court of appeals in its opinion neglected to address one of the issues raised by petitioner in his appeal to the court of appeals, specifically, whether the trial court, in excluding certain evidence presented by the defense, denied petitioner his right to present evidence in his defense. Rather than grant the petition and remand to the court of appeals, we have addressed this issue in our consideration of the petition for review and have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the evidentiary rulings in question.

WAHL, J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 N.W.2d 639, 1991 Minn. LEXIS 258, 1991 WL 151387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sybrant-minn-1991.