Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gulbrandsen, 57 N.W.2d 419.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See id; see also State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 511-12, d, 419, 422 (1953).
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
But we have also said that the State “need not make [its] argument entirely colorless and may state conclusions and inferences which the human mind may reasonably draw from the facts in evidence.” State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 511 , (“Counsel have the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”).
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 511
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 511
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 511, , 422 (1953).
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 511
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
See State v: Gulbrand- *324 sen, 238 Minn. 508, 511
State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
State v. Gtil- *364 brandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 511
State v. Holscher 417 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Holscher 417 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In general, a prosecutor’s closing argument “is to be taken as a whole and no single phrase is to be taken out of context and used as a basis for reversal * * State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 509
State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
This test was used in State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 514 , (Crimes must be so related to one another that proof of one tends to establish some element of the other).
State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , State v. Cole, 240 Minn. 52
State v. Vann 372 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Vann 372 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We have cautioned against this “nit picking and reading a portion of the argument out of context” (citing State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , ).
State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In general, argument “is to be taken as a whole and no single phrase is to be taken out of context and used as a basis for reversal * * *.” State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 509
State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
See State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508
State v. Prettyman 198 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 1972
See, State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508
State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 .
State v. Armstrong 162 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1968
State v. Armstrong 162 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1968
State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 513 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419, 423 .
State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
See State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 1 It seems to us that if television is to be brought into the trial of criminal cases we should remember that the officer in the television shows always gets his man.
State Ex Rel. Riendeau v. Tahash 148 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1967
State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
State v. Perry 142 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1966
Thus we have said that he must refrain from condemning the accused on the authority of the government he represents, State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 , citing Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88 , 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 , 79 L. ed. 1314, 1321; that he should not offer an opinion as to substantive evidence, State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 ; that he should understand that it is part of his duty to conduct trials with fairness to the rights of a defendant
State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491 , 115 N. W. (2d) 247 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 .
State v. Jones 124 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1963
State v. Jones 124 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1963
2 For recent cases involving the prejudicial effect of remarks, argument, *525 and interrogation by the prosecuting attorney, see State v. Haney, 222 Minn. 124 , 23 N. W. (2d) 369 ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Morgan, 235 Minn. 388 , 51 N. W. (2d) 61 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 ; State v. Cole, 240 Minn. 52 , 59 N. W. (2d) 919 .
State v. Schwartz 122 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1963
State v. Schwartz 122 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1963
See, also, State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 , and cases cited on this point.
State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337, 347 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616, 624 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 515 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419, 424 ; Petruschke v. Kamerer, 131 Minn. 320 , .
State v. Dahlgren 107 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1961
State v. Dahlgren 107 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1961
2 State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 ; State v. Guy, 259 Minn. 67 , 105 N. W. (2d) 892 .
State v. Guy 105 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1960
State v. Guy 105 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1960
8 See, State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 ; Young v. United States (5 Cir.) 97 F. (2d) 200, 117 A. L. R. 316; see, also, Annotation, 117 A. L. R. 326.
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955