Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1984

State v. Seifert

State v. Seifert
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided September 14, 1984 · No. C4-83-386 · Wahl
354 N.W.2d 432; 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1460 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Mollie G. Raskind, Deputy Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Alan L. Mitchell, St. Louis County Atty., 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)

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. Seifert

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

WAHL, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of procuring a controlled substance by fraud, Minn.Stat. § 152.09, subd. 2(1) (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to an executed prison term of 1 year and 1 day. The appeal brief filed by the State Public Defender argues that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the verdict. Defendant’s pro se supplementary brief argues that the Public Defender who represented him at trial failed to represent him effectively. There is no merit to either contention. The state’s evidence established that defendant went from Minneapolis to Duluth and, through intentional material misstatements and omissions of fact, obtained four prescriptions for Dilaudid, a class 2 narcotic, as well as other drugs, from four different doctors in a 2-day period. Furthermore, the record on appeal does not mandate the conclusion that defendant’s trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. State v. Lehmann, 331 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1983).

Affirmed.

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