Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Garden, 125 N.W.2d 591.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[W]here there is no showing that failure to sequester witnesses was prejudicial to the accused, the court’s refusal to require it does not in itself constitute reversible error.” d 878, 889-90 (Minn. App. 2016) ().
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he question of sequestration of witnesses rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and where there is no showing that failure to sequester witnesses was prejudicial to the accused, the court’s refusal to require it does not in itself constitute reversible error.” State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97, 112
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
We have held that the ability to sequester witnesses “rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97, 112
Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97, 113
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97, 114
State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97
State v. Posten 302 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1981
State v. Posten 302 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1981
State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97
State v. Tinklenberg 194 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
State v. Tinklenberg 194 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
This is the general rule, and any other would be an anachronism in this day when pictures are a common and recognized medium for the accurate portrayal of objects and events.” See, also, State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97, 113 , Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225
State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 ; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 .
State v. Hanson 176 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1970
State v. Hanson 176 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1970
7 State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 .
State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 .
State v. Madson 142 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1966
State v. Madson 142 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1966
In State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 , defendant had been incarcerated for 17 days before making damaging admissions.
State v. Jordan 136 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1965
State v. Jordan 136 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1965
Whether prospective witnesses should be barred from the courtroom when not giving testimony is generally a matter to be determined by the trial judge, acting within the range of discretion defined in such recent cases as State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 , and in State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 .
State v. Ellis 136 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1965
State v. Ellis 136 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1965
In State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 , we discussed sequestration of witnesses and adhered to the view that where fact issues are vital, sequestration should be granted as a matter of course, pointing out, however, that the question generally rested in the court’s discretion.
State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
State v. Quirk, 101 Minn. 334 , ; State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 .
Schwartz v. Wenger 124 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
Schwartz v. Wenger 124 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
9 Ferraro v. Taylor, 197 Minn. 5, 12 , ; In re Estate of Stephens, 207 Minn. 597, 603 , ; In re Estate of Cunningham, 219 Minn. 80, 85 , 17 N. W. (2d) 85, 88 ; State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 .