State v. Guskey
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 1985, 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. McMorris (Minn. 1985)
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 aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to 54 months in prison pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5 (1982) and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant seeks an outright reversal of his conviction on the ground that the evidence identifying him as the robber was legally insufficient. Alternatively, he seeks a new trial on a number of grounds. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized incident to an arrest that he contends was unlawful and erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony on the ground that it was the product of unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures. He also argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to bar the state from cross-examining him about a prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. He contends further that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the lesser offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying a jury request to have the testimony of one witness reread. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.