State v. Gunn
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 2008, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. 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.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Tscheu (Minn. 2008)
- State v. Steward (Minn. 2002)
- State v. Ives (Minn. 1997)
- State v. Parker (Minn. 1984)
- State v. Darris (Minn. 2002)
- State v. Sanders (Minn. 1999)
- Rairdon v. State (Minn. 1996)
- Powe v. State (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- State v. Coleman (Minn. 1985)
- State v. Ture (Minn. 1984)
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
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.342(e)(i) (1978) (sexual penetration accompanied by actor causing personal injury to complainant and actor using force or coercion to accomplish the sexual penetration). The trial court sentenced defendant to a maximum prison term of 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends (1) that his conviction should be reversed outright because the evidence that force or coercion was used to accomplish the admitted act of penetration was legally insufficient or (2) that at least he should be granted a new trial on the ground that the prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing argument amounting to plain error. We affirm.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is merit-less. The state’s evidence showed that defendant picked up a stranded female motorist, drove her to an isolated place, struck her on the head, and, by using the threat of more force, coerced her into having sexual intercourse with him. Although corrobora *138 tion of a complainant’s testimony is not required in prosecutions for criminal sexual conduct in this state, Minn.Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (1978), we have stated, however, that the absence of corroboration in an individual case might well call for a holding that the evidence was insufficient. State v. Ani, 257 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1977). Here there was strong corroboration of complainant’s testimony.
The other issue raised by defendant concerns the propriety of some statements by the prosecutor in his closing argument. Defendant, by failing to object at trial to any of the statements or seek specific cautionary instructions, is deemed to have forfeited his right to have the issue considered on appeal. While this court could reverse, notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue if we deem the error sufficient to do so, we do not believe this case justifies a reversal.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.