Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983

State v. Wallace

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 4, 1983 · Todd

330 N.W.2d 458; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1065 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Leonard A. Wilson, Jr., Cloquet, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Norman B. Coleman, Jr. and Janet New-berg Anderson, Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, Donald J. Diesen, County Atty., Carlton, Richard C. Hansen, Sp. Prosecutor, Duluth, 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 2012, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Carlton v. State (Minn. 2012)

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

TODD, Justice.

Defendant was charged by indictment with the gross misdemeanor offense of obstructing legal process by force and with two misdemeanor offenses, driving after revocation and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. He was tried in district court pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 26.01, subd. 1(1)(a). A district court jury acquitted him of the gross misdemeanor charge but found him guilty of the other two charges. We granted permission to appeal because failure to do so would have left defendant without any chance to appeal his convictions.1 We affirm.

Defendant raises four issues in his brief. The first is whether the police decision to stop him when he was riding his motorcycle was valid. Our decisions in State v. Duesterhoeft, 311 N.W.2d 866 (Minn. 1981), and City of St. Paul v. Vaughn, 306 Minn. 337, 237 N.W.2d 365 (1975), control this issue. The other contentions concern two evidentiary rulings by the trial court and the trial court’s refusal to give a certain instruction requested by defense counsel. There is no merit to any of these contentions.

Affirmed.

. We indicated in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976), that a criminal defendant is entitled to at least one right of review by an appellate court, and we believe that that applies even to misdemeanor convictions.

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