Legal Opinion

State v. Sutton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 12, 1965No. 39727PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rogosheske, Justice.

Defendant, aged 20, was convicted by a jury of uttering a forged prescription for a narcotic drug. He rests his appeal from the judgment solely on the claim that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the person who committed the offense charged.

The information charged defendant with uttering a forged prescription for a narcotic drug to Abe Orenstein, a registered pharmacist, on January 13, 1964, in violation of Minn. St. 618.18 of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act.

There is no dispute in the record that the offense charged took place in the afternoon of January 13,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. BockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  2. State v. MasonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  3. State v. FarmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
  4. State v. LytleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
  5. State v. ShansySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. CaronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  2. State v. BillstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  3. State v. BurchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  4. State v. EllingsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  5. State v. CollinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API