DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Prettyman, 198 N.W.2d 156.

48 citing documents.

  • State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See State v. Prettyman , 293 Minn. 493 , 495, , 158 (1972) (concluding that although improper, the prosecutor's use of the phrase "I think" did not prejudice defendant).
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    18, 1997) (quoting State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 494, d 156, 156 (1972) (quoting State v. Russell, 272 Minn. 463, (quotation marks omitted))).
  • Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    3 Minnesota courts have recognized that “[ajttorneys must make tactical decisions during jury selection, and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be established by merely complaining about ‘counsel’s failure to challenge certain jurors or his failure to make proper objec *114 tions.’ ” (quoting State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 494 , ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
  • State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    The prosecutor has “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.” Id.; but see State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495 , (stating it is impermissible for prosecutor to make comments such as “I think”).
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , (counsel’s decision whether or not to object to introduction of a transcript constituted trial tactic).
  • Tsipouras v. State 567 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Tsipouras v. State 567 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Attorneys must make tactical decisions during jury selection, and a-claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be established by merely complaining about “ ‘counsel’s failure to challenge certain jurors or his failure to make proper objections.’ ” State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 494 , (quoting State v. Russell, 272 Minn. 463, 465 , ).
  • Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993
  • Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993
    State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 494
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    With regard to interjection of the prosecutor’s personal opinions in the third cited comment, the court in State v. Pretty- *89 man, 293 Minn. 493, 495 , determined that the prosecutor’s repeated use of the phrase “I think” at the beginning of many statements in his final argument was misconduct.
  • State v. Reed 398 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Reed 398 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Cf. State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495 , (impermissible for prosecutor to begin “I think”).
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495
  • State v. Streeter 377 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Streeter 377 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Finally, it is improper for a prosecutor to use expressions of personal opinion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence 1 or the guilt of the defendant, even where the expressions are “more idle cliche than deliberate expression of personal opinion.” -17 (Minn.1984); State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495
  • State v. Jensen 351 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jensen 351 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
    State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495
  • State v. Curtis 295 N.W.2d 253 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Curtis 295 N.W.2d 253 Minn. 1980
    Although such statements are not proper, in the instant case, as in State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , the frequency (the prosecutor used such expressions only four times during the course of a long argument) and context (his expressions were followed by permissible inferences) of these statements suggests “that they were perhaps more idle cliche than deliberate expression of personal opinion
  • State v. Schultz 262 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Schultz 262 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1978
    See, State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493
  • State v. Bettin 244 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Bettin 244 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1976
    As we stated in State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377 , prosecutors should avoid using the word “uncontradicted” when referring to the state’s evidence; and as we have stated in numerous cases, e. g., State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , prosecutors should avoid injecting their personal opinions into final arguments.
  • State v. Burrington 241 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Burrington 241 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1976
    State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493
  • State v. Taylor 234 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 234 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1975
    However, as this court stated in State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495 , : “* * * Although always wrong, such comments are not always prejudicial.
  • State v. Van Alstine 232 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Van Alstine 232 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1975
    He is guilty of attempted murder in the first degree.” It is clear, and the state concedes, that our decision in State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495 , expressly holds this type of language to be impermissible.
  • State v. Davis 233 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Davis 233 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1975
    State v. Hanson, 289 Minn. 103, 107 , State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133
  • State v. Matthews 221 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Matthews 221 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1974
    With respect to the prosecutor’s closing argument, we note with disapproval the prosecutor’s frequent statements of personal opinion, expressions which we condemned in State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493
  • State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
    See, e. g., State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , where this court applied the latter test in determining that defendant was not entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor expressed his personal opinion in his closing statement.
  • State v. O'GEAY 216 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1974
  • State v. O'GEAY 216 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1974
    Although we strongly agree with defendant that the prosecutor erred when in his closing statement he expressed his personal opinion as to defendant’s guilt — see, State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , A. B. A. Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7-106(C) (4); A. B. A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function (Approved Draft, 1971) § 5.8 — we do not believe that this error was prejudicial.
  • State v. Williams 210 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Williams 210 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1973
    10 State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104