State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Minnesota v. Zane David Foley (minnctapp, 2024-02-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Zane David Foley
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
State v. Coauette, 601 N.W.2d 443, 447 (Minn. App. 1999), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 1999); see, e.g., State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 252 (Minn. 1983) (holding that a three-foot-long board used to beat a young child was a dangerous weapon); State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117, 117-18 (Minn. 1981) (holding that a pool cue swung like a baseball bat at a victim’s head constituted a dangerous weapon); State v. Cepeda, 588 N.W.2d 747, 749 (Minn. App. 1999) (holding that a beer bottle thrown at a victim’s head was a dangerous weapon).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera (2×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See id. (board); State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117, 117-18 (Minn. 1981) (pool cue); State v. Mings, 289 N.W.2d 497, 497-98 (Minn. 1980) (cowboy boots); State v. Cepeda, 588 N.W.2d 747, 749 (Minn. App. 1999) (beer bottle).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lund
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Bowser, 307 N.W.2d 778, 779 (Minn.1981) (seven-year-old conviction); State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117, 118 (Minn. *173 1981) (use of nine-year-old conviction); State v. Moyer, 298 N.W.2d 768, 770 (Minn.1980) (use of 10-year-old conviction where defendant served time).
cited Cited "see" State v. Gist
Minn. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1981); State v. Bettin, 295 N.W.2d 542 (Minn.1980). 3.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117, 117 (Minn. 1981) (affirming defendant’s assault-with-a-dangerous-weapon conviction when evidence showed that he took a “pool cue by the thin end and, swinging it like a baseball bat, hit [the victim] in the head, causing a severe cut”); State v. Cepeda, 588 N.W.2d 747, 749 (Minn. App. 1999) (holding that beer bottle thrown with sufficient force to break against victim’s head was a dangerous weapon).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Weyaus
Minn. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.” State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 252 (Minn.1983) (“[A] board of this nature qualifies as a dangerous weapon if so used.”); see, e.g., State v. Upton, 306 N.W.2d 117, 117-18 (Minn.1981) (pool cue); State v. Mings, 289 N.W.2d 497, 498 (Minn.1980) (cowboy boots); State v. Born, 280 Minn. 306, 306-08 , 159 N.W.2d 283, 283-85 (1968) (fists and feet).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
William Nathaniel UPTON, Appellant
51370.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jun 5, 1981.
306 N.W.2d 117
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Mark F. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Alan L. Mitchell, County Atty., and Mark S. Rubin, Asst. County Atty., Duluth, for respondent.
Todd.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
TODD, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon, Minn.Stat. § 609.225, subd. 2 (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum 5-year prison term. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that (1) his conviction should be reversed outright on the ground that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, or (2) he should be given a new trial on the ground that the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying a defense motion to prohibit the prosecutor from using a 1971 conviction for third-degree murder to impeach defendant’s credibility as a witness. We affirm.

This prosecution arose from a barroom fight in Duluth between two Coast Guard petty officers, who had never been in the bar before, and two regular patrons of the bar, one being defendant. The state’s evidenceT — which included the testimony of the two petty officers and five patrons or employees of the bar — was (a) that defendant was the first to use force when he grabbed a pool cue by the thin end and, swinging it like a baseball bat, hit one of the officers in the head, causing a severe cut, and (b) that there was no reasonable justification for this act. This evidence was[*118] more than adequate to support the conviction.

The trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in permitting the use of defendant’s 1971 conviction for third-degree murder to impeach defendant’s credibility as a witness. See State v. Mendoza, 297 N.W.2d 286 (Minn.1980); State v. Leecy, 294 N.W.2d 280 (Minn.1980); State v. Brouillette, 286 N.W.2d 702 (Minn.1979). Beyond this, it is extremely doubtful that the jury would have acquitted even if it had believed defendant’s testimony because that testimony suggests to us that defendant acted unreasonably and without justification in striking the victim with a dangerous weapon.

Affirmed.