State v. Patino, 207 N.C. App. 322 (Oct. 5, 2010)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion to sequester the State’s witnesses. In support of sequestration, defense counsel argued that there were a number of witnesses and that they might have forgotten about the incident. The court noted that neither of these reasons typically supports a sequestration order and that counsel did not explain or give specific reasons to suspect that the State’s witnesses would be influenced by each other’s testimony. The court also held that a trial court is not required to explain or defend a ruling on a motion to sequester.