Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Butler

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided August 15, 1980 · Rogosheske

295 N.W.2d 658; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1551 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Jack Nordby, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, David W. Larson, Asst. County Attys., and Thomas Weist, 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 2010, 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 § 609.58 — amended 1983 (since repealed)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

8 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Prtine (Minn. 2010)
State v. Green (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)
State v. Meldrum (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
State v. Ihle (Minn. 2002)
State v. Baird (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Lindsey (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Glowacki (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Cole (Minn. 1996)

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

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of three counts of burglary with tool, Minn.Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(l)(a) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum prison term of 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant raises a number of issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the adequacy of instructions. We affirm.

Defendant was caught and arrested as he fled from the scene of a drugstore burglary one week after the incident out of which the present charges against defendant arose. Evidence seized from defendant connected him to the burglaries with which we are concerned. The trial court also admitted, as Spreigl evidence, evidence concerning defendant’s participation in both the subsequent burglary and another drugstore burglary committed several months earlier. We are satisfied that the trial court did not prejudicially err in any of its evidentiary rulings, including the ruling admitting the Spreigl evidence, and the evidence of defendant’s guilt clearly was adequate to sustain the verdicts. Defendant did not object to the trial court’s instructions. Notwithstanding this, we could reverse if the instructions were misleading or confusing on fundamental points of law such as burden of proof and presumption of innocence. However, we are satisfied that the instructions were adequate in this respect.

Affirmed.

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