State v. Heinzer
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
Defendant Gary Heinzer appeals his conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree (rape) in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.344(c) (1982). He claims that he is entitled either to a reversal or a new trial because the jury instructions impermissibly removed the State’s burden of proving lack of consent. He also claims a reversal is justified on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient. We affirm.
FACTS
The complainant and the defendant were acquaintances. Complainant had recently moved from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Deer River, Minnesota, to be closer…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- State v. PieschkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- State v. CraceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Wisdom v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
- State v. O'HAGANCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- State v. CarverCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. CurrieCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.