State v. Weber

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Weber

313 N.W.2d 387, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1523

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 15, 1981

DocketNo. 81-1053

StatusPublished

This text of 313 N.W.2d 387 (State v. Weber) 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. Weber, 313 N.W.2d 387, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1523 (Mich. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the state pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 29.03, subd. 1. The appeal is from an order of the district court which dismissed a prosecution of defendant for violating Minn.Stat. § 340.73, subd. 1 (1980) (sale of liquor to a person under 19 years of [388]*388age) on the ground that she was entrapped by the police. The issue raised by the appeal is whether the trial court, acting as factfinder on the entrapment defense pursuant to an election made by defendant, erred in finding and concluding that defendant was entrapped. We dismiss the appeal because of the state’s failure to comply with the time requirement of Minn.R.Crim.P. 29.03, subd. 2(5), for filing an appellant’s brief. As stated in State v. Olson, 294 N.W.2d 320, 321 (Minn.1980), “[Generally we will dismiss the state’s appeal in such a situation, absent special circumstances.” See also State v. Schroeder, 292 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.1980).

Appeal dismissed.

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

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the state pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 29.03, subd. 1. The appeal is from an order of the district court which dismissed a prosecution of defendant for violating Minn.Stat. § 340.73, subd. 1 (1980) (sale of liquor to a person under 19 years of [388]*388age) on the ground that she was entrapped by the police. The issue raised by the appeal is whether the trial court, acting as factfinder on the entrapment defense pursuant to an election made by defendant, erred in finding and concluding that defendant was entrapped. We dismiss the appeal because of the state’s failure to comply with the time requirement of Minn.R.Crim.P. 29.03, subd. 2(5), for filing an appellant’s brief. As stated in State v. Olson, 294 N.W.2d 320, 321 (Minn.1980), “[Generally we will dismiss the state’s appeal in such a situation, absent special circumstances.” See also State v. Schroeder, 292 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.1980).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 N.W.2d 387, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weber-minn-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack