State v. Atkins
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 2011, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Ramey (Minn. 2006)
- Montanaro v. State (Minn. 2011)
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
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982). The trial *411 court sentenced him to a prison term of 54 months, the then-presumptive sentence under section 609.11 and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary II. E. (1982). The trial court later reduced this, pursuant to State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1982), to 41 months, which is the normal presumptive sentence duration for aggravated robbery by a person with a criminal history score of two. On this appeal, defendant contends (1) that his conviction should be reversed outright because the state failed to prove that he knowingly and intentionally aided in the commission of the robbery or (2) that at least he should be given a new trial because the prosecutor committed prejudicial error in his closing argument. These contentions are without merit. The state’s evidence included testimony by the clerk of the store that was robbed that defendant actively participated with the gunman in the robbery, evidence that defendant and the gunman fled the scene together, and evidence that when he was identified by the clerk a few minutes after the robbery, defendant made an incriminating statement in which he admitted participating in the robbery. We are satisfied that the claimed prejudicial error allegedly in the prosecutors closing argument was not plain error. Moreover, appellant’s experienced defense counsel made no objection to the allegedly erroneous argument.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.