From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Woodard

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 24, 1977
256 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 1977)

Summary

finding no prejudicial error where defense counsel did not object and, in fact, also relied on improper statement to make a point of his own in closing argument

Summary of this case from State v. Martinez

Opinion

No. 46509.

June 24, 1977.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, Richard J. Kantorowicz, J.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Robert Oliphant, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Gary W. Flakne, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, David W. Larson and Phebe S. Haugen, Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.


Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated forgery-uttering, Minn. St. 609.625, and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of 10 years in prison. Issues raised by defendant on this appeal from judgment of conviction are whether the trial court erred in admitting other-crimes evidence over defendant's objection that the Spreigl notice was untimely and whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in the manner in which he referred to defendant's prior convictions in his closing argument. We affirm.

The Spreigl notice in this case was tardy. However, defendant knew about the evidence as early as the preliminary hearing. Formal notice was given 3 days before the trial began and defendant has not shown that he did not have adequate time to prepare to meet the evidence. In short, defendant does not appear to have been prejudiced by the tardiness of the notice. See, State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 237 N.W.2d 609 (1975).

The second issue relates to statements by the prosecutor in his closing argument referring to defendant's criminal record. Although parts of the argument were objectionable, defense counsel did not object and in fact also relied on defendant's record to make a point of his own in closing argument. Further, the trial court gave a correct instruction concerning the limited permissible use by the jury of the evidence of defendant's record.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Woodard

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 24, 1977
256 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 1977)

finding no prejudicial error where defense counsel did not object and, in fact, also relied on improper statement to make a point of his own in closing argument

Summary of this case from State v. Martinez

concluding that, although the Spreigl notice was late, the "defendant does not appear to have been prejudiced by the tardiness" because "[f]ormal notice was given 3 days before the trial began and defendant has not shown that he did not have adequate time to prepare to meet the evidence"

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

concluding that, although the Spreigl notice was late, the "defendant does not appear to have been prejudiced by the tardiness" because "[f]ormal notice was given 3 days before the trial began and defendant has not shown that he did not have adequate time to prepare to meet the evidence"

Summary of this case from State v. Skinness

requiring that notice actually be deficient and also prejudice the defendant before reversing conviction

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

State v. Woodard

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Samuel WOODARD, Jr., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Jun 24, 1977

Citations

256 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 1977)

Citing Cases

State v. Skinness

To warrant reversal, the untimely notice must prejudice Skinness. See State v. Woodward, 256 N.W.2d 478, 479…

State v. Martinez

" Defense counsel's own use of this evidence weighs against a finding of prejudicial error. See, e.g., State…