268 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 1978)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Langteau

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Jun 30, 1978

268 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 1978)

Summary

holding that, although it was possible to justify the jury's verdict, "a careful consideration of the record" warranted a new trial "in the interests of justice"

Summary of this case from State v. Fineday

See 24 Summaries

Opinion

No. 47997.

June 30, 1978.

Appeal from the District Court, Ramsey County, Ronald Hachey, J.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., William B. Randall, Co. Atty., Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. Co. Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated robbery, Minn.St. 609.245, and was sentenced by the trial court to a term of 1 to 20 years in prison, §§ 609.11 and 609.245. The sole issue raised by defendant on this appeal from judgment of conviction is whether there is insufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict. Although by crediting the uncorroborated testimony of the victim and rejecting defendant's testimony denying any involvement one could justify the jury's verdict, a careful consideration of the record persuades us to order a new trial in the interests of justice.

There were only two witnesses who gave significant evidence at the trial, Ronald James Parker, the alleged victim, and Thomas Gerald Langteau, the defendant. Parker testified that at about midnight as he was returning to the St. Paul YMCA from St. Joseph's Hospital, where he had been visiting a friend, he was robbed at gunpoint by defendant.

The reason why Parker would have remained at the hospital until almost midnight — long after normal visiting hours — is unexplained. The reason why defendant would have held up Parker, with whom he was well acquainted, is left a mystery.

Defendant at all times has categorically denied any involvement in the crime, insisting that at the time of the offense he was in his room listening to the radio. Although his room and his person were searched following the incident, nothing was discovered to link him with the crime. The suggestion of the prosecuting attorney that this irrational action was explainable as the act of a person under the influence of drugs has no support whatever in the record.

The case was submitted to the jury at 11:30 a. m. on March 15, 1977. About 2 hours later, the jurors reported that there was no possibility of agreement as to defendant's guilt. Thereafter, at the request of one of the jurors, instructions with respect to the meaning of "reasonable doubt" were requested. The jurors then resumed deliberations, returning the guilty verdict at about 10 p. m.

Under all the circumstances, we conclude that in the interests of justice a new trial is required.

Reversed and remanded for trial.

Summaries of

State v. Langteau

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Jun 30, 1978

268 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 1978)

holding that, although it was possible to justify the jury's verdict, "a careful consideration of the record" warranted a new trial "in the interests of justice"

Summary of this case from State v. Fineday

reversing a conviction in light of uncorroborated witness testimony, unsupported assertions by the prosecuting attorney, and irregularities in the jury's deliberation process

Summary of this case from State v. Lockhart

involving aggravated robbery

Summary of this case from State v. Castro

In Langteau, the alleged victim testified that, "at about midnight as he was returning to the St. Paul YMCA from St. Joseph's Hospital, where he had been visiting a friend, he was robbed at gunpoint" by Langteau.

Summary of this case from State v. Vang

In Langteau, the court concluded that the victim's uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to sustain the appellant's aggravated-robbery conviction because the victim's actions were questionable.

Summary of this case from State v. Diaz

In Langteau, the court reversed a jury's guilty verdict on the grounds that the victim's testimony was illogical, the prosecutor argued without any basis that the defendant was under the influence of drugs, and the record lacked any corroborating evidence.

Summary of this case from State v. Ybarra

In Langteau, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that uncorroborated victim testimony was insufficient to establish aggravated robbery when "the actions by the victim were questionable or unexplained."

Summary of this case from State v. Galan-Alvillar

In Langteau, the appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.

Summary of this case from State v. Phillips

In State v. Langteau, 268 N.W.2d 76, 77 (Minn. 1978), the supreme court reversed a conviction for assault based on the victim's uncorroborated testimony because the victim's testimony was questionable and unexplained.

Summary of this case from State v. Keezer

In State v. Langteau, 268 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 1978), the appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, whose actions were "questionable or unexplained."

Summary of this case from State v. Spiller

In Langteau, the appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, 268 N.W.2d at 77, whose actions were "questionable or unexplained," State v. Foreman, 680 N.W.2d 536, 539 (Minn.

Summary of this case from State v. Thomas

In Langteau, a conviction was overturned because the record regarding the sole witness/victim was incomplete and did not explain contradictions with other established facts. 268 N.W.2d at 77.

Summary of this case from State v. Heidemann

In Langteau, the supreme court concluded that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim in that case was insufficient to uphold the defendant's conviction under the unique circumstances of that case.

Summary of this case from State v. Gocha

ordering a new trial "in the interests of justice" where victim's actions were left "unexplained" and motive for defendant to commit robbery against an acquaintance was "left a mystery"

Summary of this case from State v. Wuollet

remanding for new trial in interest of justice where victim's testimony was questionable and unexplained, no evidence connected defendant to the crime, and jury was confused about reasonable doubt

Summary of this case from State v. Maher

ordering new trial based solely on uncorroborated testimony of victim where there was no evidence that defendant was even in the area

Summary of this case from State v. Pennig

In Langteau, aspects of the victim's testimony remained unexplained, and there was no evidence other than the victim's testimony that connected the defendant to the crime.

Summary of this case from State v. Aaron

In Langteau, the supreme court concluded that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim was questionable and unexplained.

Summary of this case from STATE v. EGAL

remanding for new trial in interest of justice because of lack of evidence and apparent jury confusion

Summary of this case from State v. Nicks

remanding for new trial because witness testimony was inconsistent with the crime

Summary of this case from State v. Vallejo

ordering a new trial when, among other things, witness testimony was inconsistent with the commission of the crime

Summary of this case from State v. Dennis

remanding for new trial in interest of justice due to lack of evidence and apparent jury confusion

Summary of this case from State v. Kihega

In Langteau, the supreme court overturned a defendant's robbery conviction partly because it did not believe the victim's unexplained testimony that he was robbed after visiting a friend at the hospital well after visiting hours were over.

Summary of this case from State v. Biske

In Langteau, the supreme court ordered a new trial, "[a]lthough by crediting the uncorroborated testimony of the victim and rejecting defendant's testimony denying any involvement one could justify the jury's verdict."

Summary of this case from State v. Stebe

State v. Langteau

Summary

Opinion

State v. Langteau

State v. Langteau

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

State v. Langteau

Summary

Opinion

State v. Langteau

State v. Langteau

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations