Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983

State v. Mesa

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1983 · Wahl

336 N.W.2d 278; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1240 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Robert D. Goodell, Asst. Public Defender, U of M, Minneapolis, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Section, Rick Osborne, Michael Richardson and Beverly J. Wolfe, 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)

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 609.11 — amended 1986
Minn. Stat. § 609.245 — amended 1984

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.

Opinion of the Court

WAHL, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982), and was sentenced by the trial court to an executed prison term of 54 months pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1982) and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982).1 On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant argues that (1) his conviction should be reversed outright because the state failed to prove intent or (2) he should be given a new trial because the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in his closing argument. There is no merit to either contention. The state’s evidence established that defendant actively participated in the robbery as the gunman. The prosecutor did make an objectionable statement early in his closing argument but the trial court sustained an objection and cautioned the prosecutor. We are satisfied — as was the trial court, which denied a post-trial motion for a new trial on this ground — that the prosecutor’s comment did not affect the verdict.

Affirmed.

. Defendant’s criminal history score was zero. If he had not been subject to the minimum term requirement of section 609.11, defendant’s presumptive sentence under the Guidelines would have been an executed term of 24 (23-25) months in prison.

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