Minnesota Supreme Court, 1918

State v. Danaher

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 15, 1918

141 Minn. 490; 169 N.W. 420; 1918 Minn. LEXIS 423 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Brady, Robertson & Bonner, for appellant., Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, John M. Rees, County Attorney, and Walter H. Neioton, First Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1944, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Kahner (Minn. 1944)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Defendant was indicted and thereby charged with a violation of section *4918568, G. S. 1913, which declares that any person who shall wilfully prevent or dissuade a duly subpoenaed witness from attending court as such in response to a subpoena, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and on trial ( found guilty. Judgment was duly rendered on the verdict and defendant appealed.

It is contended in support of the appeal: (1) That the indictment fails to state a public offense, in that the particular acts by means of which defendant persuaded the witness to absent himself from court are not stated; and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, in that the complaining witness upon whose testimony the state relied, was an accomplice and there was no corroboration.

Neither contention requires extended discussion. The indictment follows the language of the statute and is not defective in not particularizing the methods used by defendant in inducing the witness to keep away from the court. The rule stated in State v. Howard, 66 Minn. 309, 312, 68 N. W. 1096, does not apply, and the case is not in point. We find ample corroborative evidence, and taken as a whole it fully supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.