Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. White, 203 N.W.2d 852.

56 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
For these reasons, prosecutors must refrain from conduct such as endorsing a witness’s credibility, d 89, 106 (Minn. 2009), attempting to bring inadmissible evidence to the attention of the jury, “inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant,” (quotation omitted), and discussing facts not in evidence during closing argument
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Plain-error prosecutorial misconduct requires that the prosecutor elicited inadmissible evidence “ knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury.” State v. White , (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
I. Eliciting inadmissible medical testimony “It is unprofessional conduct for either the prosecutor or defense counsel knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury to offer inadmissible evidence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A prosecutor may not “knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury to offer inadmissible evidence, as k legally objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments or arguments in the presence of the judge or jury.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The state claims that this requirement is grounded in State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 223
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant claims that they contained “strictly propensity evidence” and relies on State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 226, -59 (1973) to argue that “introduction of [a] defendant’s criminal record .
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
295 Minn. 217, 223, (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
or intentionally to mislead the jury in argument as to inferences it may draw.” State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 223
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 223
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
See State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 223
State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 225
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 223
Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“Justice does not demand an error-free trial, for the crucial inquiry is whether, considering the record as a whole, the error was prejudicial to the result.” State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 225
State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Compare, State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 226 , -59 (1973) (attempted introduction of defendant’s criminal record into evidence by prosecutor when defendant not testifying was not harmless error).
Rowe v. Goldberg 435 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In State v. White, 295 Minn. 217 , the court stated: [I]t is unprofessional conduct to ask a question which implies a factual predicate which the examiner cannot support by evidence, or intentionally to mislead the jury in argument as to inferences it may draw.
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127 , State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 225 , State v. Bell, 294 Minn. 189, 192
State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 223
State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
See State v. White, 295 Minn. 217 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , State v. Haney, 222 Minn. 124
State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 225
State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
State v. Lindsey 284 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
State v. Lindsey 284 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
See, State v. White, 295 Minn. 217
State v. Fossen 282 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1979
State v. Fossen 282 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1979
See, State v. White, 295 Minn. 217
State v. Columbus 258 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1977
State v. Columbus 258 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1977
State v. White, 295 Minn. 217
State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
We find little to indicate that the prosecutor had any factual base to inquire concerning the use of drugs by defendant or his associates; and although justice does not require *87 an error-free trial, State v. White, 295 Minn. 217 , we are convinced that this prosecutorial misconduct was prejudicial and constituted harmful error beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
In State v. White, 295 Minn. 217, 225 , this court stated: “Justice does not demand an error-free trial, for the crucial inquiry is whether, considering the record as a whole, the error was prejudicial to the result * * * infectious of a fair verdict by the jury.” The standards against which prosecutorial misconduct is t
State v. Fields 237 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1976
State v. Fields 237 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1976
We said in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127 , : “The following fairly recent cases support defendant’s claim that this statement by the prosecutor was improper: State v. White, 295 Minn. 217 , State v. Bell, 294 Minn. 189 , State v. Russell, 282 Minn. 223 , , certiorari denied, 396 U. S. 850 , 90 S. Ct. 109 , 24 L. ed. 2d 100 (1969); State v. Walker, 279 Minn. 441
State v. Van Alstine 232 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1975
State v. Van Alstine 232 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1975
State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , State v. White, 295 Minn. 217