Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Gunderson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided September 5, 1980 · Todd

296 N.W.2d 884; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1589 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Mary E. Steenson, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas W. Foley, County Atty., and Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, 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. § 609.58 — amended 1983 (since repealed)

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.

Minn. Stat. § 609.58

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

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

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

TODD, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of burglary, Minn.Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(3) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a five-year prison term. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence of his participation in the burglary was legally insufficient and that the trial court abused its discretion in honoring a request by the jury for the rereading of part of the testimony of a key prosecution witness. There is no merit to the first contention. Defendant was seen leaving the burgled building and was apprehended a short time later. Defendant, by failing to object to the trial court’s response to the jury request, forfeited his right to have this court review the propriety of the trial court’s action. State v. Severson, 289 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 1980).

Affirmed.

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