Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Severson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 15, 1980 · Otis

289 N.W.2d 496; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1302 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Ronald L. Haskvitz, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Richard D. Hodsdon, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Sonya Steven, County Atty., Grand Rapids, 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 1998, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 609.342 — amended 1981
Minn. Stat. § 609.344 — amended 1983

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Lane (Minn. 1998)
State v. Smith (Minn. 1998)
State v. McMorris (Minn. 1985)
State v. Gunderson (Minn. 1980)

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

OTIS, Justice.

Defendant was charged with criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.342 (1978), and was found guilty by a district court jury of the lesser-included offense of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.344 (1978). The trial court sentenced defendant to a limited maximum term of five (instead of ten) years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends (1) that the conviction should be reversed outright on the ground that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient or (2) that at least he should be given a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in failing to reread testimony to the jury and in failing to clarify certain instructions. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the evidence of defendant’s guilt was sufficient to sustain the verdict. Defendant, by failing to object to the trial court’s responses to the jury requests, forfeited his *497 right to have this court review the propriety of those responses, and our review of the record fails to disclose any plain error. We affirm.

Affirmed.

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