State v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Thompson

260 N.W.2d 293, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1327

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 2, 1977

DocketNo. 47142

StatusPublished

This text of 260 N.W.2d 293 (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, 260 N.W.2d 293, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1327 (Mich. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by-a district court jury of a charge of felonious theft by check, Minn.St. 609.52, subd. 2(3)(a), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 5 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed outright because there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence of guilt or that he should receive a new trial on the ground that the trial court prejudicially erred in two evidentiary rulings. There is no merit to either contention. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and the trial court did not prejudicially err in any of its evidentiary rulings. We therefore affirm.

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 felonious theft by check, Minn.St. 609.52, subd. 2(3)(a), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 5 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed outright because there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence of guilt or that he should receive a new trial on the ground that the trial court prejudicially erred in two evidentiary rulings. There is no merit to either contention. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and the trial court did not prejudicially err in any of its evidentiary rulings. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 N.W.2d 293, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thompson-minn-1977.