Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Johnson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 19, 1980 · Amdahl, Consideration, Took

300 N.W.2d 4; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1648 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Phebe Haugen, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Section, David W. Larson, and Thomas A. Weist, Asst. County Attys., 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 1981, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 609.342 — amended 1981

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. § 609.342

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Scott (Minn. 1981)

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 was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn. Stat. § 609.342(e)(i) (1978) (actor uses force or coercion to accomplish sexual penetration and causes personal injury to complainant), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum prison term of 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed' outright, because the evidence of penetration was legally insufficient, or that at least he should receive a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted other-crime evidence. There is no merit to either contention. The evidence of defendant’s guilt consisted of positive testimony by the witness, as well as strong corroborative evidence, which included the properly admitted testimony about a strikingly similar act of criminal sexual misconduct committed by defendant on another woman under similar circumstances a few months earlier. We affirm.

Affirmed.

AMDAHL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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