State v. Scott
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of soliciting or inducing a person under age 18 to practice prostitution, Minn.St. 609.32, subd. 2(1), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum term of 10 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence of guilt was legally insufficient and that the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing a jury request to review evidence. We affirm.
There is no merit whatever to defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient.
Defendant’s other contention…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. DanielsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- State v. SpauldingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. SchluterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- State v. McMorrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- State v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.