Opinion
No. 81-751.
April 9, 1982.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, William A. Posten, J.
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Mark F. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Section, Michael McGlennen, Thomas A. Weist and Jerry Strauss, Asst. County Attys., and Beverly J. Wolfe, Staff Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
After waiving his right to a jury trial, defendant was found guilty by the trial court of a charge of simple robbery and was sentenced according to the Sentencing Guidelines to the presumptive sentence of 38 months in prison. On his appeal from judgment of conviction defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on identity and claims that the trial court erred in admitting eyewitness identification testimony by the victim, who first identified defendant in a one-person showup just moments after the robbery. There is no merit to either contention. Defendant apparently did not challenge the admissibility of the eyewitness identification testimony in the trial court, but our examination of the record indicates that if defendant had done so, the trial court would have been justified in concluding that the evidence was reliable and therefore admissible. State v. Hardy, 303 N.W.2d 57 (Minn. 1981). The evidence of defendant's guilt consisted not just of the eyewitness identification testimony by the victim but also of strong corroborating evidence. Defendant, who fit the description given by the victim, was arrested in the area of the crime just moments after the crime was committed and a search of his person resulted in the discovery of the fruits of the crime, a watch. Also, defendant's shoes were missing certain parts (half sole, heels) which were found at the scene of the robbery and assault.
Affirmed.