Court Opinion

ID: 9543726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:48:40.946011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:02.974711
License: Public Domain

SHERAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the decision of the trial court upon the basis of State v. West, 285 Minn. 188, 173 N.W.2d 468 (1969). I do not dispute the authority of this court to grant a new trial in the interests of justice as was done in State v. Stewart, 297 Minn. 57, 209 N.W.2d 913 (1973). However, this authority should be used in only the clearest of cases. In the instant case, the verdict seems clearly justified.
SCOTT, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the dissent of the Chief Justice. Furthermore, the jury heard the police officer testify as to the defendant’s story. It is questionable whether the defendant would have testified in any event. The two most recent convictions could be used against him in the trial court’s discre*541tion, even under the new rules of evidence that the majority would apply upon retrial. No offer of proof was made to show that the defendant’s testimony would have added any facts not before the jury. I would affirm.
PETERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissents of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Scott.
KELLY, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissents of the Chief Justice and Justice Scott.
GODFREY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.