From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ebert

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Apr 6, 1984
346 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1984)

Summary

holding that even when evidence is admitted erroneously, a reversal is not required unless the evidence actually prejudiced the defense

Summary of this case from State v. Schulz

Opinion

No. C5-82-1326.

April 6, 1984.

Appeal from the District Court, Crow Wing County, Robert A. Peterson, J.

C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, Mary E. Steenson, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., Jerry Anderson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Stephen Rathke, Crow Wing County Atty., Brainerd, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.


Early on February 7, 1982, defendant shot and killed the woman with whom he was living. He was charged with first-degree premeditated murder but was found guilty by the jury of second-degree intentional murder. The trial court sentenced him to 116 months in prison. On this appeal defendant contends, inter alia, that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient and that the trial court erred in denying a motion for a mistrial after a prosecution witness blurted out that one of the two bullets fired by defendant was found embedded in some magazines in a box containing "Nazi paraphernalia" and magazines. There is no merit to the contention that the evidence of defendant's guilt was legally insufficient. We agree with the trial court that the testimonial reference to the "Nazi paraphernalia" was improper and in violation of an order by the court but that the error was not prejudicial. Reference to the material was a passing reference and the jury may well have concluded that the material belonged to the victim's son, who was living with defendant and the victim, or that defendant, who was in the military for 12 years, simply had a collector's interest in such materials.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Ebert

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Apr 6, 1984
346 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1984)

holding that even when evidence is admitted erroneously, a reversal is not required unless the evidence actually prejudiced the defense

Summary of this case from State v. Schulz

concluding that a witness's reference to "Nazi paraphernalia" in defendant's home was improper but brief and the jury may well have reached a nonprejudicial conclusion

Summary of this case from State v. Broin

stating that the district court did not err when it denied a motion for a mistrial after a witness blurted out information in violation of the district court's order because it was "a passing reference" and the jury could have interpreted it in a non-prejudicial manner

Summary of this case from State v. Costillo
Case details for

State v. Ebert

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Stanley EBERT, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Apr 6, 1984

Citations

346 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1984)

Citing Cases

State v. Broin

When the prohibited testimony is of a passing nature, a new trial is not warranted because it is extremely…

State v. Schulz

1978). Further, on direct appeal, we must find actual prejudice to the defendant's case in order to reverse…