CASE LAW UPDATE:  Did the defendant commit bribery of a witness?

Defendant was convicted of bribery.  He appealed.  He contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he intended to influence the testimony of a witness.   The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the bribery statute, § 609.42, subd. 1(d), does not require that the would be bribee be subpoenaed as a witness in an upcoming , scheduled proceeding, and that it includes prospective or contemplated witnesses, as well as those who have been served a subpoena to testify.  Affirmed.

State v. Kalland, A19-1228, Renville County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

By |2020-06-04T03:56:58+00:00June 4th, 2020|Victories/Case Law Updates|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment