State v. Searles
| Decision Date | 28 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41240,41240 |
| Citation | 165 N.W.2d 552,284 Minn. 523 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Donald Wayne SEARLES, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Douglas M. head, Atty. Gen., Richard H. Kyle, Sol. Gen., William B. Randall, County Atty., Thomas Poch, Thomas Quayle, Asst. County Attys., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, SHERAN, PETERSON, and FRANK T. GALLAGHER, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of aggravated robbery, claiming that the evidence offered by the state as corroboration for the testimony of an accomplice was insufficient and that articles of clothing and weapons taken from defendant's car were improperly admitted in that they were illegally seized by the police.
The robbery in question took place at Widmer's Super Market in St. Paul on May 23, 1967. A woman who lived directly across the alley behind the store had written down the license number of the car in which the robbers fled and Minneapolis police located it at the home of the registered owner, one Barbara Brown. When police entered the Brown home, defendant attempted to flee on foot but was apprehended in the neighborhood. That evening the customers and employees who were in the store at the time of the robbery were called to St. Paul police headquarters to view a lineup. One customer identified defendant as one of the three robbers, stating that as he forced her into the meat cooler his mask fell down and she got a good look at his face. The other witnesses to the robbery were unable to identify him.
Defendant's car was parked in front of the Brown home at the time of his arrest, and it was subsequently towed to the St. Paul police garage where it was searched pursuant to a warrant. The search revealed clothing and hand guns, later identified by witnesses as similar to those worn and used by the robbers and received in evidence. Defendant testified at a pretrial Rasmussen hearing that as he was fleeing from Miss Brown's home he observed police around his car and a door open. (He also stated that he was running toward the back alley from a side door and being shot at at the time he made this observation.) The court denied his motion to suppress the physical evidence found in his car, following testimony by several police officers that no one had entered his car or had even been near it at the time defendant fled.
At the trial the witness who had identified defendant in the lineup had difficulty repeating her identification and was confused as to just how the lineup had been conducted. She attributed the problem with identification to the fact that at the trial defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Searles v. State of Minnesota
...of these claims were raised in the state court. Upon direct appeal the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the conviction. State v. Searles, 165 N.W.2d 552 (Minn.1969). The federal district court denied petitioner an evidentiary hearing since its investigation of the state transcript and re......