Minnesota Supreme Court, 1972

State v. Bergland

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 3, 1972 · Knutson, Otis, Peterson, Kelly

202 N.W.2d 223; 294 Minn. 558; 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1469 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, and Doris 0. Huspeni, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, Curtis D. Forslund, Solicitor General, and Robert F. Carolan, Special Assistant Attorney General, 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 2025, 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

5 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Ferguson (Minn. 1993)
State v. Miller (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Erdman (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Duncan (Minn. 1977)
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted along with his brother of aggravated robbery, Minn. St. 609.245, contends on this appeal from the judgment of convic *559 tion that the trial court committed prejudicial error (1) in permitting proof of an assault committed by defendant and his brother which connected and identified them with the offense for which they were tried; (2) in permitting a prosecution witness who had violated a sequestration order to testify; and (3) in granting the state’s motion for a joint trial. •

We find'no merit in any of defendant’s contentions: (1) The trial court properly permitted proof of the assault in accordance with the rules and procedures which we recited in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 149 N. W. 2d 281 (1967), the leading case dealing with the identity exception to the rule generally excluding proof of other crimes; (2) defendant has shown no prejudice from the trial court’s permitting the prosecution witness who had violated the sequestration order to testify; and (3) since defendant in the presence of his counsel informed the court that he consented to a joint trial and his attorney subsequently stated he had no objection to a joint trial, this final issue cannot be raised on appeal.

Affirmed.

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