State v. Williams

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Williams

288 N.W.2d 723, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1312

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 15, 1980

DocketNo. 49857

StatusPublished

This text of 288 N.W.2d 723 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 288 N.W.2d 723, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1312 (Mich. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of burglary with a tool, Minn. Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(l)(a) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of 20 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that he should be given a new trial on the grounds that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evi[724]*724dence because the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful warrantless arrest on less than probable cause, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on testimony of an officer that implied he knew defendant from before, testimony which defendant claimed impermissi-bly informed the jury that he had a prior record. We affirm.

Defendant’s claim that the arresting officer did not have probable cause is meritless; the record reveals that the officer had adequate probable cause for believing that defendant had participated in the burglary. Defendant’s other claim lacks merit, when one realizes that defense counsel at voir dire had specifically informed the jury that defendant had a prior record, a fact which also came out when defendant testified in his own behalf.

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 burglary with a tool, Minn. Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(l)(a) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of 20 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that he should be given a new trial on the grounds that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evi[724]*724dence because the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful warrantless arrest on less than probable cause, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on testimony of an officer that implied he knew defendant from before, testimony which defendant claimed impermissi-bly informed the jury that he had a prior record. We affirm.

Defendant’s claim that the arresting officer did not have probable cause is meritless; the record reveals that the officer had adequate probable cause for believing that defendant had participated in the burglary. Defendant’s other claim lacks merit, when one realizes that defense counsel at voir dire had specifically informed the jury that defendant had a prior record, a fact which also came out when defendant testified in his own behalf.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 N.W.2d 723, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-minn-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack