State v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 02 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41102,41102 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James Roland THOMPSON, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, MURPHY, OTIS and ROGOSHESKE, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery and presents two issues for review. First, whether a revolver introduced in evidence was the product of an unlawful search of defendant's automobile; and, second, whether the evidence supports the jury's finding that defendant was not so intoxicated as to be incapable of formulating an intent.
On January 4, 1967, defendant entered a bar at 312 Grove Street in St. Paul, accompanied by an armed accomplice who ordered the patrons to lie on the floor while defendant at pistol point forced the bartender to open the safe. Two packets, each containing fifty $1 bills, were taken from the safe and $90.45 from the cash register. Thereupon, defendant ripped the receiver off the telephone, emerged from the bar, and ran toward a slowly moving automobile. He jumped into the car but got out again when it was halted by an armed police officer. When the police attempted to take defendant into custody, he broke away and started to run, whereupon he was shot in the leg and arrested. Two packets of fifty $1 bills and six 32-caliber bullets were found on his person.
1. After defendant and his accomplices were safely in custody, the police searched the getaway vehicle without a warrant and discovered a 32-caliber revolver under the front seat. Introduction of this evidence is claimed to be a violation of U.S. Const. Amend. IV. We have recently held that the search of an automobile without a warrant subsequent to arrest is valid where the vehicle is an instrumentality of the crime. State v. LaJeunesse, 280 Minn. 381, 159 N.W.2d 261; State v. Russell, 282 Minn. 223, 164 N.W.2d 65. Defendant relies on Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685. That case applied the Fourth Amendment to the search of a home and in our opinion does not put in question the propriety of State v. LaJeunesse, Supra, and State v. Russell, Supra. We are aware that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Colosimo v. Perini, 415 F.2d 804, has applied the Chimel rule to the search of an automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cook
...v. Teale (1969), 70 Cal.2d 497, 75 Cal.Rptr. 172, 450 P.2d 564; State v. Carter (1969), 54 N.J. 436, 255 A.2d 746; State v. Thompson (1970), Minn., 173 N.W.2d 459. We agree with the trial court's determination that Preston v. United States, Supra, is distinguishable. In Preston, defendant h......
-
State v. Kohuth, 41550
...21 L.Ed.2d 468; State v. LaJeunesse, 280 Minn. 381, 159 N.W.2d 261; State v. Russell, 282 Minn. 223, 164 N.W.2d 65; and State v. Thompson, 285 Minn. 529, 173 N.W.2d 459, the search was reasonable and hence the gun was 3. Finally, defendant complains the prosecutor unfairly referred to the r......
-
State v. Johnson
...The instrumentality theory is appropriate because defendant was transporting contraband in his automobile. See State v. Thompson, 285 Minn. 529, 173 N.W.2d 459 (1970); State v. Thiel, 299 Minn. 179, 217 N.W.2d 499 (1974); 7 Minnesota Practice, Criminal Law and Procedure, § Equally appropria......
-
State v. Morrison
...v. Russell, 282 Minn. 223, 164 N.W.2d 65, certiorari denied, 396 U.S. 850, 90 S.Ct. 109, 24 L.Ed.2d 100 (1969); State v. Thompson, 285 Minn. 529, 173 N.W.2d 459 (1970). ...