State v. Affeldt
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) 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.
Opinion of the Court
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of publishing a false statement relating to the value of corporate property with intent to defraud, Minn.Stat. § 609.645(1) (1976), and was placed on probation and ordered by the trial court to pay restitution. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, that the statute should be deemed to be void for vagueness, and that the trial court’s instructions failed to adequately inform the jury of the charge and the state’s burden of proof. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient. We are also satisfied that the statute is not void for vagueness. See generally W. LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law § 11 (1972). Defendant did not object to the trial court’s instructions. However, we note that the instructions, while not necessarily model ones, were adequate to inform the jury of the charge against defendant and the nature of the state’s burden of proof.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.