State v. Dingfelder
The holding in the court’s own words
We hold, in affirming defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape, Minn. St. 609.291, that there was sufficient credible evidence to sustain the conviction and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s pretrial motion for a change of venue or in admitting photographs of the victim, taken 2 days after the incident, which showed the bruised condition of her body.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. McGlynn 292 Minn. 405
- State v. Whelan 291 Minn. 83
- State v. Artez 286 Minn. 545
- State v. Annis 291 Minn. 552
- State v. Tinklenberg 292 Minn. 271
- State v. Dimler 206 Minn. 81
Opinion text
Per Curiam. We hold, in affirming defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape, Minn. St. 609.291, that there was sufficient credible evidence to sustain the conviction and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s pretrial motion for a change of venue or in admitting photographs of the victim, taken 2 days after the incident, which showed the bruised condition of her body. With respect to the first issue, we rely on, among other cases, State v. McGlynn, 292 Minn. 405 , 195 N. W. 2d 583 (1972); State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83 , 189 N. W. 2d 170 (1971); State v. Artez, 286 Minn. 545 , 176 N. W. 2d 81 (1970). With respect to the denial of the change of venue motion, see, State v. Annis, 291 Minn. 552 , 192 N. W. 2d 419 (1971). On the issue of admissibility of the photographs, see, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271 , 194 N. W. 2d 590 (1972), and State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81 , 287 N. W. 785 (1939). Affirmed.