Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983

State v. Abraham

State v. Abraham
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 18, 1983 · Scott
340 N.W.2d 121; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1337 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Minn. State Public Defender by Mark F. Anderson, Asst. State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Norman B. Coleman, Jr., James B. Early, Spec. Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, Larry Collins, Waseca County Atty., Waseca, 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

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

State v. Abraham

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Opinion of the Court

SCOTT, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of two counts of the gross misdemeanor offense of fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, Minn.Stat. § 609.487, subd. 3 (1982). The trial court fined defendant a total of $500 and sentenced him to two consecutive jail terms of 1 year each. The court stayed execution of the jail sentences and placed defendant on probation, subject to a number of conditions, including that defendant serve 1 year of probationary jail time with the second 6 months suspended if he agreed to participate in a chemical dependency treatment program at the end of the first 6 months. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant seeks an outright reversal of his convictions on the ground that the evidence identifying him as the driver of the car that fled the peace officers on two different occasions was legally insufficient. There is no merit to this contention.

Affirmed.

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