Case Name: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Russell SPERL, Appellant
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1979-12-21
Citations: 287 N.W.2d 923
Docket Number: No. 49991
Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Russell SPERL, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 287
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Russell SPERL, Appellant.
No. 49991.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec. 21, 1979.
Gislason, Dosland, Malecki, Gislason & Halvorson and Robert M. Halvorson, New Ulm, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard D. Hods-don, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. T. Rodenberg, County Atty., and James R. Olson, Asst. County Atty., New Ulm, for respondent.

Opinion:
YETKA, Justice.
Defendant, who was charged with felony theft (theft of more than $100), Minn.Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(1), 3(2) (1974), was found guilty by a district court jury of the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor theft (theft of $100 or less), § 609.52, subd. 3(5). The trial court has stayed imposition of sentence pending the outcome of this appeal by defendant. Issues raised by defendant relate to the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's submitting the lesser offense over defense counsel's objection. We affirm.
There is no merit to defendant's contention that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient. Defendant's other contention basically is that a defendant ought to be able to prevent submission of lesser offenses. We have rejected this contention in a number of cases, most recently in State v. Schluter, 281 N.W.2d 174 (Minn.1979). We again do so in this case.
Affirmed.