State v. Nyhus

23 Citing cases

  1. People v. Jelke

    308 N.Y. 56 (N.Y. 1954)   Cited 140 times
    In People v. Jelke (308 N.Y. 56), decided herewith, we have just held that the broad order of exclusion made by Mr. Justice VALENTE, on his own motion and not at the request of the District Attorney or the defendant, deprived the latter of his right to a public trial.

    (See United States v. Kobli, supra, 172 F.2d 919; Tanksley v. United States, supra, 145 F.2d 58; People v. Yeager, 113 Mich. 228; State v. Keeler, supra, 52 Mont. 205; Rhoades v. State, 102 Neb. 750; State v. Osborne, 54 Or. 289; Neal v. State, 86 Okla. Cr. 283.) There are, it is true, decisions in several states which have sustained the inherent power of the court to exclude the general public from trials involving sexual offenses, provided friends or relatives of the defendant's choosing are permitted to remain in the courtroom. (See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 26 Idaho 609; State v. Croak, 167 La. 92; State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326; cf. Robertson v. State, 64 Fla. 437.) Those cases, however, reflect an unduly narrow view, to which we cannot subscribe, of the purposes and scope of a public trial.

  2. State v. Haskins

    38 N.J. Super. 250 (App. Div. 1955)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the right to a public trial cannot be waived by a defendant's silence

    , as meaning "not secret." Thus in the following decisions it was held not improper to admit only the following persons to the courtroom: Reagan v. United States, 202 F. 488, 490, 44 L.R.A., N.S., 583 (9 th Cir. 1913) — witness, court officers and all members of bar; Sawyer v. Duffy, 60 F. Supp. 852, 853 ( D.C.N.D. Cal. 1945); Keddington v. State, 19 Ariz, 457, 172 P. 273 L.R.A. 1918 D, 1093 ( Sup. Ct. 1918) — witnesses, defendant's relatives and reporters; Benedict v. People, 23 Colo. 126, 46 P. 637 ( Sup. Ct. 1896) — lawyers, law students, court officers and witnesses; Robertson v. State, 64 Fla. 437, 60 So. 118, 119 ( Sup. Ct. 1912) — all persons directly interested in the case; State v. Johnson, 26 Idaho 609, 144 P. 784, 785 ( Sup. Ct. 1914) — all persons other than spectators; State v. McCool, 34 Kan. 617, 9 P. 745, 747 ( Sup. Ct. 1886) — all persons other than ladies; State v. Croak, 167 La. 92, 118 So. 703, 705 ( Sup. Ct. 1928) — including those specially requesting admittance; State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326, 124 N.W. 71, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 487 ( Sup. Ct. 1909) — jurors, court officers, attorneys, litigants, witnesses and persons whom the parties may request to remain; Grimmett v. State, 22 Tex. App. 36[ 22 Tex.Crim. 36], 2 S.W. 631 ( Ct. App. 1886); State v. Smith, 90 Utah 482, 62 P.2d 1110, 1115 ( Sup. Ct. 1936) — witnesses, members of bar, press, relatives, intimate friends (counsel consenting); State v. Holm, 67 Wyo. 360, 224 P.2d 500, 508 ( Sup. Ct. 1950) — witnesses, interested parties, friends; cf. Hogan v. State, 191 Ark. 437, 86 S.W.2d 931, 932 ( Sup. Ct. 1935) — exclusion for ten minutes because of ten-year-old prosecutrix' embarrassment; Moore v. State, 151 Ga. 648, 108 S.E. 47 ( Sup. Ct. 1921); Sallie v. State, 155 Miss. 547, 124 So. 650 ( Sup. Ct. 1929); State v. Damm, 62 S.D. 123, 252 N.W. 7, 10, 104 A.L.R. 430 ( Sup. Ct. 1933) — exclusion during examination of 13-year-old prosecutrix who had commenced to cry; State ex rel. Baker v. Utecht, 221 Minn. 145, 21 N.W.2d 328, 331 ( Sup. Ct. 1946) —

  3. United States ex Rel. Bruno v. Herold

    408 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that the federal habeas corpus petitioner was not entitled to a new trial on the grounds that he was denied his right to a public trial, given that his trial counsel had not objected to the courtroom being cleared of some spectators during a portion of the trial

    Justice Harlan's definition of a "public trial" in Estes v. Texas, supra, is, as far as I have discovered, the latest U.S. Supreme Court pronouncement on the subject, but prior to 1965 there had been conflicts in the state courts and inferior federal courts as to the meaning of the phrase. The narrowest view had been that only a limited number of spectators need be present in addition to those persons necessary to conduct the trial, e.g., Reagan v. United States, 202 F. 488, 44 L.R.A., N.S., 583 (9 Cir. 1913) (those necessary to conduct of trial plus members of the bar); Robertson v. State, 64 Fla. 437, 60 So. 118 (1912) (those necessary for conduct of the trial plus those interested in the case); State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326, 124 N.W. 71, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 487 (1909) (those necessary for conduct of the trial plus bar, witnesses and anyone the parties desire present); Grimmett v. State, 22 Tex. App. 36[ 22 Tex.Crim. 36], 2 S.W. 631 (1886) (only officers, jurors and counsel allowed to be present); State v. Smith, 90 Utah 482, 62 P.2d 1110 (1936) (those necessary to conduct of trial plus bar, press, relatives and friends of accused). The broader view had required that the trial be left open to everybody, e.g., Davis v. United States, 247 F. 394, L.R.A. 1918C, 1164 (8 Cir. 1917) (one which the public is at liberty to attend); State v. Hensley, 75 Ohio St. 255, 79 N.E. 462, 9 L.R.A., N.S., 277 (1906) (one open to the observation of all and not limited to any particular class of the community); Fields v. Ohio, 4 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 401, 17 Ohio Dec. 16 (C.P. 1906) (one to which any proper person may have admittance).

  4. Reagan v. United States

    202 F. 488 (9th Cir. 1913)   Cited 18 times
    In Reagan v. United States, 202 F. 488, 120 C.C.A. 627, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 583, the court, at the beginning of the trial, directed that the spectators should leave the courtroom.

    These constituted a sufficient number of the public to see that the plaintiff in error was fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned. In State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 487, 124 N.W. 71, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that on a trial on the charge of rape the making and enforcing of an order excluding all persons from the courtroom, except all jurors, officers of the court, including attorneys, litigants, and their attorneys, witnesses for both parties, and any other person or persons whom the several parties to the action may request to remain, does not deprive the defendant of a public trial, within the statutory and constitutional provisions giving persons accused of crime the right to a speedy and public trial. Of those provisions the court said: 'They were enacted to make it forever impossible for public prosecutors or courts to continue the evils of secret trials as they formerly existed. * * * These provisions are held to be subject to a reasonable construction, and circumstances may arise where ce

  5. State v. Johnson

    277 Minn. 368 (Minn. 1967)   Cited 56 times
    Granting a new trial because it appeared that the death had been accidental and the jury seemed to doubt whether the defendant was actually at fault despite the conviction

    We have held in a long line of cases that where this court entertains grave doubt as to a defendant's guilt, the interests of justice require that there be a new trial. State v. Anderson, 272 Minn. 384, 137 N.W.2d 781; State v. Iago, 66 Minn. 231, 68 N.W. 969; State v. Cowing, 99 Minn. 123, 108 N.W. 851; State v. McLarne, 128 Minn. 163, 150 N.W. 787; State v. Steeves, 130 Minn. 53, 152 N.W. 1103; State v. Jacobson, 130 Minn. 347, 153 N.W. 845; State v. Nyhus, 176 Minn. 238, 222 N.W. 925; State v. Wulff, 194 Minn. 271, 260 N.W. 515; State v. Star, 248 Minn. 571, 81 N.W.2d 94. See, also, People v. Casillas, 60 Cal.App.2d 785, 141 P.2d 768. Here, as in State v. Edmons, 132 Minn. 465, 156 N.W. 1086, the record leads to the conclusion that no errors were committed in the trial, and the instructions to the jury are not open to criticism.

  6. State v. Anderson

    272 Minn. 384 (Minn. 1965)   Cited 12 times

    We have considered the other assignments of error and find them to be without merit. State v. Iago, 66 Minn. 231, 68 N.W. 969; State v. Cowing, 99 Minn. 123, 108 N.W. 851; State v. McLarne, 128 Minn. 163, 168, 150 N.W. 787, 789; State v. Steeves, 130 Minn. 53, 152 N.W. 1103; State v. Jacobson, 130 Minn. 347, 352, 153 N.W. 845, 847; State v. Edmons, 132 Minn. 465, 156 N.W. 1086; State v. Nyhus, 176 Minn. 238, 222 N.W. 925; State v. Wulff, 194 Minn. 271, 273, 260 N.W. 515, 516; State v. Star, 248 Minn. 571, 81 N.W.2d 94. See, also, People v. Casillas, 60 Cal.App.2d 785, 794, 141 P.2d 768, 772. People v. Christie, 16 A.D.2d 598, 600, 229 N Y So.2d 779, 781; People v. Griffin, 17 A.D.2d 658, 230 N Y So.2d 354; Louis v. State, 92 Okla. Cr. 156, 167, 222 P.2d 160, 165; Foster and Freed, Offenses Against the Family, 32 U. of Mo. at Kansas City L.Rev. 32, 47.

  7. Clark v. Josephson

    66 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 1954)   Cited 26 times
    In Clark, the defendant driver argued an award of $1300 to the plaintiff, who claimed she suffered injuries in a two-car collision, was "not based on any evidence" because "there was no medical testimony pertaining to her personal injuries."Id. at 547.

    State v. Kent, 5 N.D. 516, 67 N.W. 1052, 35 L.R.A. 518; Schnase v. Goetz, 18 N.D. 594, 120 N.W. 553; State v. Oien, 26 N.D. 552, 145 N.W. 424. See State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326, 124 N.W. 71, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 487; State v. Hazlet [Hazlett], 16 N.D. 426, 438, 113 N.W. 374. "Evidence also is admissible which shows the entry of a plea of guilty and a conviction of a witness for the same assault and battery in a criminal case, as an admission of the witness against his interest.

  8. Hoffer v. Burd

    78 N.D. 278 (N.D. 1951)   Cited 32 times
    In Hoffer v. Burd, 1951, 78 N.D. 278, 49 N.W.2d 282, the court permitted testimony by a nurse's aide testifying as to the apparent condition of the defendant after an accident.

    Arnold et al v. McKelvey, 253 Pa. 324, 98 A. 559. No objection was made when counsel referred to evidence in other cases but in the instructions the court said: "If counsel upon either side during the course of the trial or during the heat of argument have made any statements not warranted by the evidence you should wholly disregard such statements in arriving at your verdict." This court in the case of State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326, 124 N.W. 71, laid down the rule that counsel in argument may make legitimate comments on the evidence but must not give any independent testimony of his own. Then in State v. Knudson, 21 N.D. 562, 132 NW 149, this court held that "Where the defendant alleges misconduct on the part of the state's attorney in his argument to the jury, and relies on the same as ground for reversal, he must first seasonably object thereto, and obtain a ruling from the trial court thereon, requesting the court to take action by reprimand to the counsel, instructions to the jury, or other suitable action."

  9. State v. Braathen

    77 N.D. 309 (N.D. 1950)   Cited 22 times
    In State v. Braathen, 77 N.D. 309, 43 N.W.2d 202, 215 (1950), the prosecutor argued to the jury that government "officials who were witnesses were not only sworn to tell the truth but had taken other oaths in addition, and.... were attorneys who would be subject to disbarment if they did not tell the truth.

    It is equally improper for the prosecuting attorney to go outside the testimony and make such statements. Wisner v. Wardwell, 38 Mich. 278; 16 CJ 899; State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326, 124 N.W. 71; State v. Knudson, 21 N.D. 562, 132 N.W. 149. MORRIS, J.

  10. Commonwealth v. Blondin

    324 Mass. 564 (Mass. 1949)   Cited 68 times
    In Commonwealth v. Blondin, 1949, 324 Mass. 564, 87 N.E.2d 455, the Supreme Judicial Court overruled appellant's exceptions to the order denying a new trial, and at the same time, on the petition for a writ of error, affirmed the judgment of conviction.

    State v. Genese, 102 N.J.L. 134, 141-142. State v. Nyhus, 19 N.D. 326. Reagan v. United States, 202 Fed. 488. There are also decisions to the contrary such as Rhoades v. State, 102 Neb. 750, People v. Yeager, 113 Mich. 228, State v. Hensley, 75 Ohio St. 255, State v. Osborne, 54 Or. 289, and Davis v. United States, 247 Fed. 394.