Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Durnam, 75 N.W. 1127.

51 citing documents.

Minn. 2021
State v. Coles 328 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1983
State v. Coles 328 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1983
437 (1935); State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , 75 N.W.
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
7 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 2060; State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , ; State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450 , ; State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51 , 171 N. W. (2d) 695 , certiorari denied, 397 U. S. 1049 , 90 S. Ct. 1381 , 25 L. ed. (2d) 662, among others.
State v. Thieme 160 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1968
State v. Thieme 160 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1968
State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , ; State v. Olson, 195 Minn. 493 , .
State v. Jackson 147 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
State v. Jackson 147 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
In such case there may be an appeal to the discretion of the trial court, whose duty it is to consider the nature of the objection to the juror, the diligence exercised to ascertain it in due time, and the other circumstances of the case.” In State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , , it appeared that one of the jurors was not a citizen.
Atkinson v. Mock 135 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
Atkinson v. Mock 135 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
In State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 161 , , we said: “* * * [I]f not discovered until after verdict, the cause of challenge will not per se constitute ground for a new trial.
State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
Mr. Justice Mitchell, speaking for this cohrt, in State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 165 , , defined an accomplice: “* * * An accomplice, in legal signification, is one who co-operates, aids, or assists another in the commission of a crime, either, as principal or accessory.
State v. Polk 116 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1962
State v. Polk 116 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1962
In considering a criminal appeal based on the fact that one of the jurors was not a citizen, Mr. Justice Mitchell stated the law on this *216 subject in State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 160 , , as follows: “The doctrine is as old as the common law that no objection could be taken to any incompetency of a juror after he was accepted and sworn.
Moose v. Vesey 29 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1947
Moose v. Vesey 29 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1947
“In such a case there may be an appeal to the discretion of the trial court, whose duty it is to consider the nature of the objection to the juror, the diligence exercised to ascertain it in due time, and the other circumstances of the case.” State v. Boice, 157 Minn. 374, 376 , ; State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , .
State v. Tennyson 2 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1942
State v. Tennyson 2 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1942
State v. *163 Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , ; State ex rel.
State v. Panetti 280 N.W. 181 Minn. 1938
State v. Panetti 280 N.W. 181 Minn. 1938
State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , ; State v. Gordon, 105 Minn. 217 , , 15 Ann. Cas.
State v. Olson 263 N.W. 437 Minn. 1935
State v. Olson 263 N.W. 437 Minn. 1935
In any view of the matter, we are convinced that it is a proper case for the application of the doctrine laid down in State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 160 , , where Mr. Justice Mitchell said: “First, no objection can be taken to any incompetency in a juror (existing at the time he was called) after he is accepted and sworn, if the fact was known to the party, and he was silent; second, and, even if not discovered until after verdict, the cause o
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , .
State v. Hook 224 N.W. 144 Minn. 1929
State v. Hook 224 N.W. 144 Minn. 1929
The reason stated for the decisions in State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , ; Keegan v. M. & St.
State v. Boice 196 N.W. 483 Minn. 1923
State v. Boice 196 N.W. 483 Minn. 1923
State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , .
State v. Dahl 186 N.W. 580 Minn. 1922
State v. Dahl 186 N.W. 580 Minn. 1922
State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 [165], ; State v. Gordon, 105 Minn. 217 , , 15 Ann. Cas.
State v. Smith 175 N.W. 689 Minn. 1919
State v. Smith 175 N.W. 689 Minn. 1919
16 C. J. 671, and cases cited; State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 165 , ; State v. Gordon, 105 Minn. 217 , , 15 Ann. *353 Cas.
State v. Henrionnet 170 N.W. 699 Minn. 1919
State v. Henrionnet 170 N.W. 699 Minn. 1919
State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , .
State v. Moilen 167 N.W. 345 Minn. 1918
State v. Moilen 167 N.W. 345 Minn. 1918
12; State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , .
State v. Price 160 N.W. 677 Minn. 1916
State v. Price 160 N.W. 677 Minn. 1916
The court in its instructions to the jury said: “A witness is an accomplice of the defendant on trial, if he himself could be indicted and punished for the offense either as principal or accessory.” It is argued that the correct rule is found in State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 165 , , where it is said that “the general test to determine whether a witness is or is not an accomplice is, could he himself have been indicted for the offense either as principal or as accessory ?” But it is hardly fair
State v. Brand 145 N.W. 39 Minn. 1914
State v. Brand 145 N.W. 39 Minn. 1914
State v. Baden, 37 Minn. 212 , ; State v. Quinlan, 40 Minn. 55 , ; State v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226 , ; State v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28 , *410 ; State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , ; State v. Renswick, 85 Minn. 19 , .
State v. Gordon 117 N.W. 483 Minn. 1908
State v. Gordon 117 N.W. 483 Minn. 1908
If he could not, then he is not an accomplice.” State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 165 , .
State v. Evans 92 N.W. 976 Minn. 1903
State v. Evans 92 N.W. 976 Minn. 1903
This rule was followed in State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , , and State v. Feldman, 80 Minn. 314 , , and is the settled law in this jurisdiction.
State v. Fitchette 92 N.W. 527 Minn. 1902
State v. Fitchette 92 N.W. 527 Minn. 1902
In the later case of State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , , which was a prosecution for soliciting a bribe of one partner, a conversation with the other partner, after evidence tending to show a conspiracy between both, was admitted.
State v. Renswick 88 N.W. 22 Minn. 1901
State v. Renswick 88 N.W. 22 Minn. 1901
State v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226, 231 , ; State v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28, 31 , ; State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150 , .
Keegan v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 78 N.W. 965 Minn. 1899