State v. Thompson

139 N.W.2d 490, 273 Minn. 1, 1966 Minn. LEXIS 789
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJanuary 7, 1966
Docket39343, 39702
StatusPublished
Cited by149 cases

This text of 139 N.W.2d 490 (State v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 139 N.W.2d 490, 273 Minn. 1, 1966 Minn. LEXIS 789 (Mich. 1966).

Opinion

Knutson, Chief Justice.

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and appeals from an order denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial; from a supplemental order denying his motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence; and from the judgment of conviction.

The conviction resulted from the brutal murder of defendant’s wife, Carol Thompson, on March 6, 1963, admittedly by one Dick W. C. Anderson.

*4 At the time defendant’s wife was killed defendant was a practicing attorney of some prominence in the city of St. Paul. He was admitted to the bar in 1955 after having attended Macalester College from 1946 to 1950 and the St. Paul College of Law from 1951 to 1955. After working at some jobs that are not of importance here, he began practicing law and was quite successful, mainly in the fields of personal injury, domestic relations, and criminal law. He was very active in bar association activities and did some teaching at the William Mitchell College of Law.

While attending Macalester College defendant met and married his wife. They have four children, a son born in 1949, and three girls born in 1951, 1953, and 1956. The family moved into the home in which they were living at the time of Mrs. Thompson’s death in 1958. The home is located at 1720 Hillcrest Avenue in St. Paul. Both defendant and his wife were active in many community affairs and in their church. Defendant had served as an elder and a trustee of his church. So far as the record shows, their married life was harmonious and they seemed to get along well together, taking many trips with each other.

During the summer of 1960 defendant commenced a social relationship with one Jacqueline Okoneski whom, to begin with, he had represented in a divorce action. The relationship continued on a fairly regular basis until December 1961, and included dinner dates, visits by defendant to her apartment, some trips to out-state motels, frequent trips to a lake home at Forest Lake, Minnesota, owned by Carol’s father, and one trip to Chicago. During 1961 Jackie attended a business school. She paid the tuition and expenses with money borrowed from defendant and upon her completion of this study was employed by defendant as a secretary. She repaid the money borrowed to pay for her education. In December 1961 Jackie began dating one Ronald Olesen, and early in 1962 returned a ring to defendant which he had given her shortly before that time. In the month of January 1962 Jackie terminated her employment with defendant’s law firm. After December 1961 she dated defendant only a few times and on those occasions indicated that she was interested in marrying Ronald Olesen. She testified that in February 1962 defendant asked her if, before she made a final decision, she would give him a year or 11 months to get his financial affairs straightened around so as to ar *5 range for the financial well-being of his family, but that she refused to do so. It appears that after the early part of 1962 Jackie saw defendant only a few times, for business purposes. In June 1962 she married Ronald Olesen. Sometime later in the summer of 1962 she came to defendant’s office to discuss with him obtaining a divorce from Olesen, and papers were drawn to commence a divorce action. According to Jackie, she had lunch with defendant during the summer of 1962 and he asked her if she would marry him if he put $10,000 in the bank in her name, but she replied in the negative. In September 1962 Jackie’s divorce action was commenced by defendant. The papers were personally served upon Ole-sen by defendant. It appears that in October 1962 a reconciliation was contemplated and defendant requested a friend of Jackie’s to discourage her from such reconciliation with her husband. It does appear that in November 1962 Jackie and her husband were reconciled and living together. Defendant called her a few times and in December 1962 he had some harsh words with her husband, who would not permit defendant to speak with Jackie. She testified that sometime shortly after Christmas 1962 defendant called her at her work and asked her if she would be interested in taking an apartment in a building he owned, but that she refused. This appears to be the last time he contacted her prior to the death of Mrs. Thompson.

In January 1962 defendant and his wife traveled to Chicago and visited with acquaintances by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Gove, whom they had known since their days at Macalester College. Mr. Gove was in the insurance business and after being informed that Carol Thompson had very little insurance on her life he strongly urged Thompson to purchase some such insurance. He recommended a $50,000 ordinary life policy. Upon their return to St. Paul defendant had a conversation with his regular insurance agent, James Treanor. Inquiry was made about term insurance, and as a result of this interview and further negotiations defendant purchased insurance, much of which was term insurance with accidental death benefits, or purely accidental death insurance. This brought the aggregate insurance on her life to $1,061,000. The attached chart shows the amount and nature of the term insurance and the time it was purchased.

*6 Defendant explained to Treanor and testified at the trial that his desire for this amount of insurance was based on the fact that if he died first his wife and children would have approximately $1,000,000 to live on by combining the insurance he carried on his life, which amounted to some $460,000, and an anticipated $500,000 inheritance she would receive from her father, a successful plumbing contractor of considerable wealth. Defendant testified that in order to have an equal amount for himself and his children if Carol should die first he purchased this insurance, amounting to somewhat over $1,000,000. He also stated that he had reached a position in life where he could easily afford it out of an unneeded monthly retainer which he received from the company owned by Carol’s father. He stated that he had a premonition that his wife was going to have a tragic accident on February 8 or 9, 1963, and that he had had such premonitions previously when his brother and sister had died unexpectedly.

In July 1962 defendant was contacted by one Norman Mastrian in connection with a possible false arrest of Mastrian in Anoka. Mastrian had attended Macalester College about the same time as defendant, but it appears that defendant did not remember him from those days. On July 31, 1962, defendant agreed to represent Mastrian if he were paid a retainer of $2,500. Mastrian had no such money but did own stock in Telostat Corporation. Defendant agreed to take 1,000 shares of the stock in lieu of his retainer, but the company refused to make the transfer in that manner, so defendant paid Mastrian $2,500 in cash and then immediately took it back, as well as the stock. Further negotiations led to the purchase of the remaining 2,200 shares of stock in this company owned by Mastrian, for which he paid $1.25 a share, or a total of $2,750. Defendant testified that he was interested in acquiring controlling interest in the Telostat Corporation. On December 31, 1962, he had ascertained that the stock was virtually worthless and sold all of his stock to the president of the company for $800.

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

Related

State v. Estrada Comacho
309 Neb. 494 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Henry
875 N.W.2d 374 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. Castillo-Alvarez
820 N.W.2d 601 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2012)
State v. Buckingham
772 N.W.2d 64 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2009)
Travelers Insurance Company v. Thompson
163 N.W.2d 289 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2008)
State v. Kouba
709 N.W.2d 299 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2006)
State v. Conn
685 N.W.2d 357 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2004)
State v. Lopez-Solis
589 N.W.2d 290 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1999)
State v. Jenkins
411 N.W.2d 504 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
State v. Copple
401 N.W.2d 141 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1987)
State v. Iverson
396 N.W.2d 599 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
State v. Daniels
380 N.W.2d 777 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1986)
State v. Gustafson
379 N.W.2d 81 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1985)
State v. Hathaway
379 N.W.2d 498 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1985)
State v. Folley
378 N.W.2d 21 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)
State v. Buschkopf
373 N.W.2d 756 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1985)
Matter of Discipline of Thompson
365 N.W.2d 262 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1985)
State v. Fratzke
354 N.W.2d 402 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1984)
State v. Ngoc Van Vu
339 N.W.2d 892 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1983)
State v. Blue
327 N.W.2d 7 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 N.W.2d 490, 273 Minn. 1, 1966 Minn. LEXIS 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thompson-minn-1966.