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. Williams, 210 N.W.2d 21.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
  • State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
    he relevant evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, or because of inadmissible evidence and innuendo”); (reversing the defendant’s conviction although “there undoubtedly was sufficient admissible evidence on which to base the verdict of guilty” because prosecutorial misconduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial); –27 (Minn. 1973) (holding that, although “the evidence [was] clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction,” the prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and warranted a
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Prosecutors are prohibited from “injecting [their] personal opinion[s] concerning the veracity of a witness during closing argument.” State v. Williams
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Vouching for the Victim’s Credibility Nowels further contends that the pr osecutor improperly vouched for the victim-witness, J.C., when sh e said that he “didn’t lie .” Generally, there is a “well-established prohibition against” an attorney “injecting [her] personal opinion concerning the veracity of a witness during closing argument.” State v. Williams
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “[I]mpeaching cross -examination of an accused must be limited to the fact of conviction, the nature of the offense, and the identity of [the] defendant.” State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76, 84
  • State v. Worthy 569 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Worthy 569 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (adversarial system of justice requires that prosecutor alone cannot be charged with assessing whether mitigating factors exist in sentencing); State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , 85 n. 8, , 26 n. 8 (1973) (“[Defense counsel is * * * one of the three major participants along with judge and prosecutor.
  • Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76, 85 , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
    Further, as this court made clear in State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , a prosecutor should inquire about specific prior crimes only when he can produce evidence, such as a certified copy of the judgment of conviction, to rebut the denial.
  • State v. Higgins 422 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Higgins 422 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76, 83-84
  • State v. Oden 385 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Oden 385 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Further, as this court made clear in State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , a prosecutor should inquire about specific prior crimes only when he can produce evidence, such as a certified copy of the judgment of conviction, to rebut the denial.
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
    State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174
  • State v. Pulkrabek 268 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Pulkrabek 268 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1978
    Further, as this court made clear in State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , a prosecutor should inquire about specific prior crimes only when he can produce evidence, such as a certified copy of the judgment of conviction, to rebut the denial.
  • State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
    State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , State v. White, supra.
  • State v. Holty 238 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Holty 238 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1976
    While cross-examining a defense witness, the prosecutor did fail to follow the procedure recommended in State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , that prosecutors inquire about prior convictions only when they can produce evidence to rebut a denial.
  • 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. Michaelson 214 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Michaelson 214 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1973
    Recently, in State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , we cautioned against the use of FBI “rap sheets” for impeachment purposes because they are merely investigatory tools and do not necessarily contain complete information.