State v. Granger
Cited by
- Mike Allen Homes, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- In the Matter of the Leonard E. Erlandson and Marion L. Erlandson Irrevocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- In re the Joan C. Ranallo Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- In the Matter of the Otto Bremer Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- Katie Howard, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- In re The Robert Preus and Donna Mae Preus Lake Property Family Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- In re the Matter of the Revocable Trust Agreement of Avis V. Cordes under … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- In re: Trust of Phyllis Gene Jones, Settlor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- In re: The Frank John Rodriguez Sr. Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- In re the Trust Agreement of D. Robert Sykes. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Ani 257 N.W.2d 699
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.St. 609.-342(c)(d), and was sentenced by the trial court to a limited maximum term of 7 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that there was, as a matter of law, insufficient evidence to justify a verdict of guilty. There is no merit to this contention. Contrary to what defendant argues, corroboration of the complainant’s testimony was not required. Minn.St. 609.347, subd. 1, provides that “[i]n a prosecution under sections 609.-342 to 609.346, the testimony of the complainant need not be corroborated.” Even if there were a corroboration requirement, it would not have benefited defendant because the complainant’s testimony was in fact corroborated. State v. Ani, Minn., 257 N.W.2d 699 (1977). Affirmed.