State v. Ostroot
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. 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. Crain (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
Defendant was found guilty of theft of over $150, Minn.Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(1) and 3(2) (1980). She was sentenced to five years in prison and placed on probation for three years, conditioned on her reimbursing the public defender for representing her.
Issues raised by defendant in this appeal relate to the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress eyewitness identification testimony on due process grounds.
The state’s evidence was substantially identical to that adduced at the separate trial of her codefendant whose conviction we affirm in State v. Crain, 306 N.W.2d 891 (Minn. 1981). The issues she raises are sufficiently addressed in the opinion we render in the Crain appeal.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.