Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1973

State v. Stevenson

State v. Stevenson
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 20, 1973 · Consideration, Members, Scott, Submission, Took, Yetka
297 Minn. 60; 209 N.W.2d 915; 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1059 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, Thomson, Wylde & Nordby, and Jack S. Nordby, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, William B. Randall, County Attorney, and Steven C. DeCoster and Robert Kittel, Assistant County Attorneys, 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 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

State v. Stevenson

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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 of the Court

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree. The trial court denied defendant’s pretrial motion to bar cross-examination of defendant as to prior convictions. The defendant testified and admitted prior convictions of aggravated assault and simple assault 3 years previously and of assault and battery 7 years previously. We affirm.

As stated in State v. Stewart, 297 Minn. 57, 209 N. W. 2d 913 (1973), we are not disposed to overrule State v. West, 285 Minn. 188, 173 N. W. 2d 468 (1969), as to use of prior convictions as impeachment of a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

The compelling interests of justice in the Stewart case are not present in this case so as to preclude the use of these prior convictions for purposes of impeachment.

We have considered defendant’s other claims on appeal and find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

*61Mr. Justice Yetka and Mr. Justice Scott, not having been members 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.