Defendant was charged in district court with six counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. Specifically, he was charged with two counts each — one alleging force or coercion plus aggravated circumstances in the form of severe mental anguish, the other alleging that the complainant feared imminent great bodily harm — for each of three acts of sexual misconduct. Minn.Stat. § 609.342 (1976). Defendant did not request submission of any lesser offenses and none was submitted. The jury acquitted defendant of two counts relating to one of the acts but found him guilty of the remaining four counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to two terms of 20 years each for the third and fifth counts involving fear on the part of the complainant of imminent great bodily harm, with the sentences running concurrently with each other and with a sentence defendant was serving for a prior offense on which parole was revoked. On this appeal from judgment, defendant seeks either a new trial or a modification of his convictions to criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. Defendant seeks a new trial on the grounds that the prosecutor improperly elicited evidence, that the jury may have deliberated for a few minutes before counsel gave their closing arguments, and that the prosecutor made improper statements in closing argument. Defendant alternatively seeks modification of his convictions to criminal sexual conduct in the third degree on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that the victim feared imminent great bodily harm (counts on which he was sentenced) or that she suffered severe mental anguish (counts on which defendant was found guilty but not sentenced). We affirm.

The complainant in this case was a 20-year-old woman, whom defendant and an accomplice took to an isolated field late at night and forced to commit certain sexual acts. The record supports the two convictions based on a finding that the misconduct occurred when the complainant had a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm. Peterson v. State, 282 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 1979). We need not decide whether the evidence also was sufficient to support convictions on the other two counts, the ones involving severe mental anguish, because defendant was not sentenced for either of them and the prosecutor concedes that defendant was never formally adjudicated guilty of these two counts. With respect to the allegations of error committed during the trial process, all that needs to be said is that defendant, by his failure to object, seek curative instructions, or move for a mistrial, forfeited his right to have us consider the issues on appeal.

We therefore affirm, with the one exception that we hereby vacate the sentence on the fifth count on the basis of Minn.Stat. § 609.035.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

State v. Ashland

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Dec 28, 1979

287 N.W.2d 649 (Minn. 1979)

holding that, when the evidence supports the theory on which a defendant was convicted, alternative theories of guilt need not be addressed

Summary of this case from State v. Nelson

concluding that the court "need not decide" a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to counts for which no sentence was imposed

Summary of this case from State v. Capers

noting that appellate courts need not determine sufficiency of the evidence for convictions that are not formally adjudicated

Summary of this case from State v. Oneil

declining to address arguments raised related to criminal charges not formally adjudicated

Summary of this case from State v. Chauvin

stating that an appellate court need not decide whether record evidence was sufficient when a defendant is not formally adjudicated on a guilty verdict

Summary of this case from State v. Knott

declining to review sufficiency of evidence for counts which defendant was not adjudicated or sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Veitia

stating the appellate courts need not decide legal issues related to claims that are not adjudicated or sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Mullen

stating that an appellate court need not decide whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions on counts that were not formally adjudicated and sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Bingham

noting that a reviewing court need not assess the sufficiency of the evidence for unadjudicated counts

Summary of this case from State v. Carter

stating that an appellate court need not decide whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for counts for which the defendant was neither sentenced nor adjudicated guilty

Summary of this case from State v. Hawkins

stating that this court does not have to consider sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims on unadjudicated—and unsentenced—counts

Summary of this case from State v. Gach

stating that appellate courts need not decide whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions on counts for which the defendant was not formally adjudicated guilty or sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

declining to review sufficiency challenge on unadjudicated counts where no sentence was imposed

Summary of this case from State v. Suggs

declining to address sufficiency challenge for guilty verdict when defendant was not formally adjudicated guilty and not sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Larsen

declining to address sufficiency-of-evidence argument with respect to counts on which defendant was found guilty but not formally adjudicated or sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Weldon

declining to address sufficiency-of-evidence argument with respect to counts on which defendant was found guilty but not formally adjudicated or sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Gratz

declining to address sufficiency-of-the- evidence argument for counts on which the defendant was found guilty but not sentenced or formally adjudicated guilty

Summary of this case from State v. Vue

declining to address sufficiency of evidence for jury's guilty verdict on offenses of which defendant was not formally adjudicated guilty and for which defendant was not sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Puente

declining to address sufficiency of evidence for jury's guilty verdict on offenses of which defendant was not formally adjudicated guilty and for which defendant was not sentenced

Summary of this case from State v. Ezeobi

declining to address sufficiency-of-evidence argument for counts on which defendant was found guilty but not sentenced or formally adjudicated guilty

Summary of this case from State v. Stringer

declining to address sufficiency-of-evidence argument for counts on which defendant was found guilty but not sentenced or formally adjudicated guilty

Summary of this case from State v. Espinosa

declining to address sufficiency-of-evidence argument for counts on which defendant was found guilty but not sentenced or formally adjudicated guilty

Summary of this case from State v. Passon

declining to address sufficiency-of-evidence argument for counts on which defendant was found guilty but not sentenced or formally adjudicated guilty

Summary of this case from State v. Anderson

declining to decide whether district court erred by granting amendment to complaint when jury did not convict defendant on charges stemming from amendment

Summary of this case from State v. Rios

reviewing court need not address sufficiency of evidence on charge not formally adjudicated

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

State v. Ashland

Summary

Opinion

State v. Ashland

State v. Ashland

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

State v. Ashland

Summary

Opinion

State v. Ashland

State v. Ashland

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations