State v. Wendling

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Wendling

217 N.W.2d 768, 300 Minn. 511, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1376

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 26, 1974

Docket44134

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 217 N.W.2d 768 (State v. Wendling) 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. Wendling, 217 N.W.2d 768, 300 Minn. 511, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1376 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of exhibiting obscene materials in violation of the obscenity ordinance of the city of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, § 870.080.

*512 Since the alleged criminal acts of defendant took place before our decision in State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 216 N. W. 2d 641 (1974), he did not have the clear notice of legislative proscription that Welke requires.

As this court stated in State v. Carlson, 298 Minn. 415, 416, 216 N. W. 2d 650, 651 (1974), decided the same day as Welke:

“* * * [W]e prefer to err, if at all, on the side of that fair notice vouchsafed in Welke. The state’s interest is, in our view, sufficiently served by the clear notice of authoritative construction made in Welke without burdening the state and the defendants with the uncertainties and expense of reappeals to the United States Supreme Court concerning its application of conduct antecedent to Welke.”

This rationale is also applicable to the case at bar.

Our decision on the above issue makes it unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error raised by defendant in this appeal.

Reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint.

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