Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fagerstrom, 176 N.W.2d 261.

90 citing documents.

In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 604 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
See State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Graff 510 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Graff 510 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
ANALYSIS A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to “assistance of counsel for his own defense.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 298 , (citing U.S. Const, amends.
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
Dziubak v. Mott 503 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1993
State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299 , (appellant may not obtain continuance by arbitrarily choosing to substitute counsel at time of trial).
State v. Richards 463 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1990
State v. Richards 463 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1990
See State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , (defendant may not obtain continuance by discharging counsel for purposes of delay); Carey v. State of Minnesota, 767 F.2d 440, 441-42 (8th Cir.1985) (criminal defendant does not have absolute right to choice of counsel); United States v. Gorman, 661 F.Supp.
State v. Johnson 417 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Johnson 417 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
4 (1954); State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 298
State v. Whitcomb 413 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Whitcomb 413 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
536 , 88 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985); State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
State v. Beveridge, supra ; State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295
State v. Beveridge 277 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1979
State v. Beveridge 277 N.W.2d 198 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , d *199 261 (1970); and State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Hamilton 268 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1978
State v. Hamilton 268 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1978
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , State v. Bell, 275 Minn. 541
State v. Happel 259 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1977
State v. Happel 259 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1977
We hold that under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance—see, State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , —and, in any event, defendant was well represented by her privately retained counsel and has not shown any prejudice from the denial of her motion.
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295
State v. Carey 207 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1973
State v. Carey 207 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1973
The trial judge here acted in conformity with our own declaration in State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299 , : “* * * [T]he right of an indigent to have counsel does not give him the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.
State v. McKelvy 196 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1972
State v. Chytracek 196 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1972
State v. McKelvy 196 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1972
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295
State v. Chytracek 196 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1972
The action of the trial court in exercising its discretion to deny substitution of attorneys under the circumstances is supported by State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , and State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Ahearn 194 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1972
State v. Ahearn 194 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1972
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , State v. Huber, 275 Minn. 475
State v. Walter 184 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
State v. Walter 184 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295 , 176 N. W. (2d) 261 ; State v. Hartman, 272 Minn. 58 , 136 N. W. (2d) 543 .