Washington v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Washington v. State

340 N.W.2d 863, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1351

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 9, 1983

DocketNo. C2-83-144

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 N.W.2d 863 (Washington v. State) 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

Washington v. State, 340 N.W.2d 863, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1351 (Mich. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERSON, Justice.

Petitioner was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of assault in the second degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.222 (1982) (assault with a dangerous weapon), and was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Petitioner, who is now on supervised release, appeals from the order denying his petition for postconviction relief, claiming that the evidence that he used a dangerous weapon was legally insufficient. There is no merit to this contention. Evidence that the jury could justifiably rely on as a basis for inferring that a dangerous weapon, such as a knife, was used included the evidence that the victim felt himself bleeding shortly after petitioner swung at him and made contact, evidence that petitioner then chased the victim threatening to kill him, medical testimony that the victim sustained three wounds which “probably” were caused by a knife, and evidence that petitioner had been seen carrying a knife shortly before the incident. See State v. Seefeldt, 292 N.W.2d 558 (Minn.1980) (upholding conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon in case in which, although victim did not see weapon, it was inferable from the evidence that a dangerous weapon was used).

Affirmed.

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

PETERSON, Justice.

Petitioner was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of assault in the second degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.222 (1982) (assault with a dangerous weapon), and was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Petitioner, who is now on supervised release, appeals from the order denying his petition for postconviction relief, claiming that the evidence that he used a dangerous weapon was legally insufficient. There is no merit to this contention. Evidence that the jury could justifiably rely on as a basis for inferring that a dangerous weapon, such as a knife, was used included the evidence that the victim felt himself bleeding shortly after petitioner swung at him and made contact, evidence that petitioner then chased the victim threatening to kill him, medical testimony that the victim sustained three wounds which “probably” were caused by a knife, and evidence that petitioner had been seen carrying a knife shortly before the incident. See State v. Seefeldt, 292 N.W.2d 558 (Minn.1980) (upholding conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon in case in which, although victim did not see weapon, it was inferable from the evidence that a dangerous weapon was used).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 N.W.2d 863, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-minn-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack