State v. Freeman
Opinion text
Per Curiam. Defendant, found guilty by a district court jury of receiving or concealing stolen property, Minn. St. 1971, § 609.53, and sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate prison sentence of not more than 10 years and a fine of $10,000, appeals pro se from judgment of conviction, making numerous contentions including: (1) that the information was ambiguous and confusing; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting wiretap evidence; (3) that the trial court improperly admitted evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; (4) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of retail market value of stolen goods; (5) that there was insufficient evidence that certain of the property was stolen; (6) that the state illegally used paid informers to entrap him; and (7) that the state knowingly used perjured testimony to convict him. We have reviewed the record carefully and discern no error. See, State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 83 , 123 N. W. 2d 177, 182 (1963). Affirmed. Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.