State v. Olson
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) Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
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.
Opinion
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1978) and was sentenced by the trial court to a prison term of 3 to 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence identifying him as the robber was legally insufficient and that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in his closing argument to the jury. There is no merit to the contention that the evidence was legally insufficient. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. We do not decide the issue of the propriety of the allegedly improper statement by the prosecutor in closing argument, because defense counsel did not object to the statement. Instead, he chose to respond to it in his closing argument. Under the circumstances, we conclude that defendant must be deemed to have forfeited his right to have the issue considered by this court on appeal.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.