From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Dec 19, 1980
300 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. 1980)

Opinion

No. 50699.

December 19, 1980.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, Douglas K. Amdahl, J.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Phebe Haugen, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Section, David W. Larson, and Thomas A. Weist, Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent.

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


Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn. Stat. § 609.342(e)(i) (1978) (actor uses force or coercion to accomplish sexual penetration and causes personal injury to complainant), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum prison term of 20 years. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed outright, because the evidence of penetration was legally insufficient, or that at least he should receive a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted other-crime evidence. There is no merit to either contention. The evidence of defendant's guilt consisted of positive testimony by the witness, as well as strong corroborative evidence, which included the properly admitted testimony about a strikingly similar act of criminal sexual misconduct committed by defendant on another woman under similar circumstances a few months earlier. We affirm.

Affirmed.

AMDAHL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Dec 19, 1980
300 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. 1980)
Case details for

State v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Roland JOHNSON, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Dec 19, 1980

Citations

300 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. 1980)

Citing Cases

State v. Scott

1. There is no merit to defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting the other-crime…