Cited by

“[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) ().

Such a motion “is properly denied where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

d 483, 487 n.4 (Minn. 2024) (“While not dispositive, the court of appeals has similarly held that a district court’s failure to exercise discretion constitutes an abuse of discretion.” ()); (“This is not that rare case where we interfere with the exercise of discretion, but a case where the exercise of discretion has not occurred.”).

A motion for a judgment of acquittal “is properly denied where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

(); rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(holding a district court abuses its discretion by failing to exercise discretion) .

(holding that a district court’s failu re to exercise its disc retion is an abuse of discretion).

“The rules of criminal procedure do not permit the district court to extend the deadline for serving a new-trial motion.” State v. DeLaCruz , 8 (Minn. App. 2016).

review denied (Minn. Aug.

“The rules of criminal procedure do not permit the district court to extend the deadline for serving a new-trial motion.”

d 878, 888 (Minn. App. 2016) (determining a district court failed to exercise its discretion and remanding the case for further proceedings).

(stating that this court essentially reviews such a denial for sufficiency of the evidence).