TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Salazar

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. George Richard Edward SALAZAR, Jr., A.K.A. Edward Charles Carreon, Appellant

State v. Salazar, 289 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 22, 1980
Docket
No. 49917
Judges
Scott
Citations
289 N.W.2d 7531980 Minn. LEXIS 1314

Opinion — Scott

SCOTT, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of assault with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 5 years in prison. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that (1) the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, (2) that the trial court improperly permitted a witness to testify that when defendant stabbed the victim defendant was not defending himself against any attack, and (3) that he was denied a fair trial because of the state’s failure to locate the victim and call the victim as a witness. We affirm.

The victim in this case left the state and returned to Alabama, where he was from, shortly after he was released from the hospital, and he could not be located for trial. However, two witnesses, who had never met either defendant or the victim before the day in question, both gave testimony which sufficiently supported the jury’s finding that defendant stabbed the victim with a screwdriver and that the attack was not in self defense. The state did not introduce any hearsay statement of the victim nor was it responsible for the victim’s being unavailable, and therefore no Sixth Amendment issue is raised. There is no reason to believe that the victim’s testimony would have been favorable to defendant and defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the victim’s absence is not borne out by our examination of the record. In fact, defense counsel attempted to use the victim’s absence to defendant’s advan *755 tage in closing argument. Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to ask one of the two key witnesses whether defendant was defending himself against an attack when he stabbed the victim has no merit, since the purpose of the prosecutor’s question was not to elicit a legal opinion on the issue of self defense — which would not have been helpful to the jury — but simply to elicit testimony as to whether the witness saw the victim do anything which prompted defendant to stab him.

See R. 701 and 704, R.Evid.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1980: 11984: 11988: 11989: 11992: 11994: 12001: 12006: 12025: 119802026peak 1980 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Post512 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 1994)
  2. Mehralian v. State346 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
  3. Brown v. BolinNo. 0:24-cv-00398 (D. Minnesota Mar. 5, 2025)
  4. State v. Valdez770 P.2d 313 (Ariz. 1989)
  5. State v. Jobe486 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1992)
  6. State v. Carlos17 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001)

Most recent

  1. Brown v. BolinNo. 0:24-cv-00398 (D. Minnesota Mar. 5, 2025)
  2. State v. Edwards717 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 2006)
  3. State v. Carlos17 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001)
  4. State v. Post512 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 1994)
  5. State v. Jobe486 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1992)
  6. State v. Valdez770 P.2d 313 (Ariz. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list