Minnesota Supreme Court, 1972

State v. Wicklund

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided September 15, 1972 · MacLaughlin

201 N.W.2d 147; 295 Minn. 402; 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1127 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warren Spawnaus, Attorney General, Elton A. Kuderer, County Attorney, and David McKenna, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant., C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, and Doris O. Huspeni, Assistant State Public Defender, for respondent.

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 2024, 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

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Welfare of C.K. (Minn. 1988)
State v. Smith (Minn. 2012)
State v. Kvam (Minn. 1983)
State v. Rainey (Minn. 1975)
State v. Wicklund (Minn. 1973)
State of Minnesota v. Jhonathan Jontae Robinson (Minn. Ct. App. 2024)
City of St. Paul v. Moody (Minn. 1976)

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

Per Curiam.

The state appeals from an order by the district court suppressing marijuana which police officers without a warrant seized from defendant. At the Rasmussen hearing, two police officers testified on behalf of the state concerning the events that led up to the search and seizure of the evidence suppressed by the court. Three witnesses contradicted portions of the police officers’ testimony. No useful purpose would be served in reciting all of the testimony in detail.

The trial court, in suppressing the seized marijuana, relied on State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 190 N. W. 2d 631 (1971), and State v. Gannaway, 291 Minn. 391, 191 N. W. 2d 555 (1971).

We are not in position to review this case because of the absence of any findings of fact. The memorandum of the court is not helpful in this case as to fact questions as it does not comment on the evidence. We do not know if the trial court accepted as true all of the testimony on behalf of the state and neverthe *403 less suppressed the evidence or if the conflicting testimony of defendant was the basis for the decision. The cause is, therefore, remanded in order that the district court may make findings of fact.

Remanded.

Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.