Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

354 N.W.2d 432

State v. Seifert

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 14, 1984

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1984-09-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“through intentional material misstatements and omissions of fact”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Wilbur

Relies on State v. Lehmann

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-09-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2019

2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

601984199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WAHL, Justice.

¶1Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of procuring a controlled substance by fraud, Minn.Stat. § 152.09, subd. 2(1) (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to an executed prison term of 1 year and 1 day. The appeal brief filed by the State Public Defender argues that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the verdict. Defendant’s pro se supplementary brief argues that the Public Defender who represented him at trial failed to represent him effectively. There is no merit to either contention. The state’s evidence established that defendant went from Minneapolis to Duluth and, through intentional material misstatements and omissions of fact, obtained four prescriptions for Dilaudid, a class 2 narcotic, as well as other drugs, from four different doctors in a 2-day period. Furthermore, the record on appeal does not mandate the conclusion that defendant’s trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. State v. Lehmann, 331 N.W.2d 759 (Minn.1983).

¶2Affirmed.

/354/nw2d/432 · .json · Public domain