|
STATE v. KOONCE
<br /> Cite as 249 N.W.2d 467
<br />
<br /> [1, 2] A city council is vested with broad
<br />discretion in determining whether to issue a
<br />liquor license. Wajda v. City of Minneapo-
<br />lis, Minn., 246 N.W.2d 455 (1976); 10 Dun-
<br />nell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 4911. The decision to
<br />grant or refuse an application for a liq.uor
<br />license cannot be controlled by mandamus
<br />unless the city council has acted arbitrarily,
<br />capriciously, or unreasonably. Wajda v.
<br />City o£ Minneapolis, supra.
<br />
<br /> [3,4] A city council has the power to
<br />refuse a license or to limit the number of
<br />licenses to be granted, when, in the judg-
<br />merit of the council, the welfare of the city
<br />suggests such action. State ex rel. Howie
<br />v. Common Council of City o£ North field, 94
<br />Minn. 81, 10~ N.W. 1063 (1904). The city
<br />council's action in denying the Polmans'
<br />application was reasonable under the stan-
<br />dards set forth in our decisions.
<br />
<br /> Affirmed.
<br />
<br />Minn. 467
<br />
<br />1. Criminal Law ~=~339.8(1)
<br /> Identification evidence was not improp-
<br />er despite contention that warrantless ar-
<br />rest was not based on probable cause and
<br />that subsequent lineup was tainted by such
<br />illegality.
<br />
<br />2. Criminal Law ~=566
<br /> Robbery ~=24.3
<br /> There was not, as matter of law, insuf-
<br />ficient evidence identifying defendant as
<br />assailant, in prosecution wherein defendant
<br />was convicted of aggravated robbery and
<br />aggravated assault. M.S.A. §§ 609.22(1),
<br />609.245.
<br />
<br /> C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Rosalie
<br />E. Wahl, Spec. Asst. Public Defender, Min-
<br />neapolis, for appellant.
<br /> Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., William B.
<br />Randall, County Atty., Steven C. DeCoster,
<br />Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respon-
<br />dent.
<br />
<br /> Considered and decided by the court
<br />without ora] argument.
<br />
<br /> STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
<br />
<br /> V.
<br />
<br />Robert Adrian KOONCE, Appellant.
<br />No. 46256.
<br />
<br /> Supreme Court of Minnesota.
<br />
<br /> Jan. 7, 1977.
<br />
<br /> Defendant was convicted in thc Dis-
<br />trict Court, Ramscy County, Stephen L.
<br />Maxwcll, J., of aggravated robbery anti ag-
<br />gravated assault. Defendant appealed.
<br />The Supreme Court held that identification
<br />evidence was not improper despite thc con-
<br />tention that warrantless arrest was not
<br />based on probable cause and that a subse-
<br />quent lineup wa~ tainted by such illegality.
<br />
<br /> PER CURIAM.
<br />
<br /> il, 2] Defendant was found guilty by a
<br />district court jury of charges of aggravated
<br />robbery, Minn. St. 609.245, and aggravated
<br />assault, Minn. St. 609.22, subd. 1, and was
<br />sentenced by the trial court to a maximum
<br />indeterminate term of 20 years in prison.
<br />On this appeal from judgment of convic-
<br />tion, defendant contends that (1) his war-
<br />rantlcss arrest was not based on probable
<br />cause and that a subsequent lineup at which
<br />he was identified was tainted by this ille-
<br />gality, and (2) there was, as a matter of
<br />law, insufficient evidence identifying him
<br />as the assailant. We have considered both
<br />contentions and conclude that there is no
<br />merit to either of them.
<br />
<br />Affirmed.
<br />
<br />KE~¥NOMBERS¥STEM~
<br />
<br />Affirmed.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|