Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Williams

State v. Williams
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 15, 1980
288 N.W.2d 723; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1312 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Rapoport, Singer & Wylde and Michael G. Singer, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Bruce L. Anderson, County Atty., Two Harbors, 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)

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

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

State v. Williams

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of burglary with a tool, Minn. Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(l)(a) (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of 20 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that he should be given a new trial on the grounds that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evi*724dence because the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful warrantless arrest on less than probable cause, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on testimony of an officer that implied he knew defendant from before, testimony which defendant claimed impermissi-bly informed the jury that he had a prior record. We affirm.

Defendant’s claim that the arresting officer did not have probable cause is meritless; the record reveals that the officer had adequate probable cause for believing that defendant had participated in the burglary. Defendant’s other claim lacks merit, when one realizes that defense counsel at voir dire had specifically informed the jury that defendant had a prior record, a fact which also came out when defendant testified in his own behalf.

Affirmed.

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