Minnesota Supreme Court, 1977

State v. Shuffler

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 22, 1977 · Per Curiam

254 N.W.2d 75; 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1550 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty, Gen., St. Paul, Gary W. Plakne, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Division, David W. Larson and Phebe S. Haugen, Asst., County Attys., and Lee Barry, Law Clerk, Minneapolis, 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 2023, 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 of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)
State v. Kennedy (Minn. 1998)
State v. Wermerskirchen (Minn. 1993)

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.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of indecent liberties, Minn.St. 609.296, subd. 1(2), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 4 years in prison. Issues raised by defendant on this appeal from judgment of conviction are whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a similar act by defendant 1 month before the date of the crime charged and whether the court erred in its cautionary instructions to the jury on the use of this evidence. We believe that this evidence was directly relevant to the jury’s resolution of the key factual issue, which was whether defendant had taken indecent liberties with the victim, as she testified, or whether he had merely tapped her on the shoulder and said hello, as defendant testified. The only issue relating to the instructions which defendant preserved for appeal by proper objection was whether the court misled the jury into thinking that there were other prior offenses than the one on which there was testimony. While the cautionary instructions were not as clear as they could have been, it is unlikely that they prompted the jury to conclude that there were other prior offenses which defendant had committed.

Affirmed.

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