State v. Bourbeau
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. 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.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. McKenzie (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
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
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.342(a) (1978) (sexual penetration of complainant under 13 years old by actor who is more than 36 months older), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum prison term of 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends (1) that post-arrest statements he made to Ohio officers were the suppressible product of a Fourth Amendment violation and therefore were improperly admitted at trial, and that even if his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, one of the statements should have been suppressed on the grounds of lack of relevance and potential for unfair prejudice, and (2) that certain alleged errors by the prosecutor and the trial court denied him a fair trial. We affirm.
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment issue is answered by our recent opinion in State v. Vohnoutka, 292 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. 1980). Here, as there, the officer properly approached an already stopped vehicle, shined a flashlight through the window, and
Defendant’s contention that our Rules of Evidence mandate the suppression of one of the written statements is merit-less.
Defendant’s other contentions must be deemed forfeited, because defendant failed to object to any of the alleged errors. There was no plain error.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.