State v. Bosnich
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1978, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Willis (Minn. 1978)
- State v. Kremer (Minn. 1976)
- State Ex Rel. Geiselhart v. Tahash (Minn. 1966)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Defendant appeals from a conviction for theft prosecuted under Minn. St. 609.52, subds. 2(1) and 3(3) (a), (L. 1963, c. 753, § 609.52, subds. 2[1] and 3[3][a]) asserting that his arrest was illegal; that he was deprived of counsel; that the evidence fails to sustain the verdict; and that he is now entitled to a substitution of attorneys.
Defendant complains of brutal treatment incident to his arrest which he contends deprived the court of jurisdiction. In addition, he alleges he was denied the right to counsel for a period of 8 days following his arrest. These matters do not appear in the settled case or in the record, and since they were not presented to the trial court, we decline to review them. In any event, they are not shown to have resulted in any prejudice on the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence, State v. Perra, 266 Minn. 545, 125 N. W. (2d) 44; Williams v. United States, 120 App. D. C. 244, 345 F. (2d) 733, *554 as he was adequately represented by the public defender throughout all these proceedings from the time of his arraignment in the district court.
Three eyewitnesses identified defendant as one of the two persons who committed the theft for which he was prosecuted. We find the evidence sufficient to support his conviction.
Although the attorney who was appointed to represent defendant on appeal initially took the position that there was no basis in the record for reversal, he has nevertheless pursued the appeal vigorously and conscientiously. Whatever may have been his original appraisal, he has now diligently discharged his duty in advocating appellant’s cause. Bentley v. State (Alaska) 393 P. (2d) 225.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.