State v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Taylor

264 N.W.2d 157, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1359

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 17, 1978

Docket47347

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 264 N.W.2d 157 (State v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 264 N.W.2d 157, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1359 (Mich. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by. a district court jury of a charge of making terroristic threats in violation of Minn.St. 609.713, and was sentenced by the trial court to a limited maximum term of 1 year and 1 day in prison. The sole issue on this appeal from judgment of conviction and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial is whether the trial court prejudicially erred in permitting the state to elicit on cross-examination of defendant that approximately 6 years earlier, when he was 20 years old, he had been convicted in Iowa of possessing marijuana.

While we agree with defendant that the crime arguably had very little relevance to the truth-seeking process or to defendant’s credibility as a witness, we do not think this is a case like State v. Stewart, 297 Minn. 57, 209 N.W.2d 913 (1973), where the interests of justice warrant granting defendant a new trial on this ground.

We note in passing that the issue of impeachment by prior conviction is now governed by Rule 609, Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1977.

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 making terroristic threats in violation of Minn.St. 609.713, and was sentenced by the trial court to a limited maximum term of 1 year and 1 day in prison. The sole issue on this appeal from judgment of conviction and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial is whether the trial court prejudicially erred in permitting the state to elicit on cross-examination of defendant that approximately 6 years earlier, when he was 20 years old, he had been convicted in Iowa of possessing marijuana.

While we agree with defendant that the crime arguably had very little relevance to the truth-seeking process or to defendant’s credibility as a witness, we do not think this is a case like State v. Stewart, 297 Minn. 57, 209 N.W.2d 913 (1973), where the interests of justice warrant granting defendant a new trial on this ground.

We note in passing that the issue of impeachment by prior conviction is now governed by Rule 609, Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1977.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 N.W.2d 157, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-minn-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack