State v. Prettyman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
Defendant, convicted of aggravated robbery of a grocery store, appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
1. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was not only sufficient but compelling. First, he was positively identified by the store clerk from whom he took the store’s receipts at gunpoint. Although defendant contested her testimony, which described him as heavily bearded, by testimony that his face was shaven on the morning of the robbery, the jury was not compelled either to credit that testimony or to disregard the other details recalled by the victim in her description of him. Second, it was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. WaldronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- State v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- Adler v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- State v. CaronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- State v. TureSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. RaceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- State v. MarksNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.