Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 3, 1980
294 N.W.2d 855; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1501 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Robert J. Streitz, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, App. Section, Asst. County Atty., David W. Larson, Asst. County Atty., and Thomas A. 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 1986, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

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. Johnson

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, appeals from a judgment of conviction of burglary and theft of property valued at more than $2,500, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.52, subd. 2(1); .58, subd. 2(3) (1978). He contends that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his motions, (a) to prohibit use of defendant’s prior convictions to impeach him if he testified, and (b) to suppress his false statements to the police regarding his name and age in response to their questioning.

Appellant was apprehended with the stolen property in his possession while preparing to leave the scene of the crime. The rulings of the trial court did not, in our opinion, have any material effect on the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed.

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