Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Caron, 218 N.W.2d 197.

327 citing documents.

State v. Billups 264 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1978
State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
State v. Schultz 262 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1978
State v. Schultz 262 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1978
See, State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , and State v. Prettyman, supra .
State v. Arndt 260 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1977
State v. Arndt 260 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1977
State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
State v. Spencer 248 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1976
State v. Spencer 248 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1976
The standards for review of a prosecutor’s misconduct were set forth in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127 , : “* * * The test of determining whether prosecutorial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of misconduct with which we are dealing.
State v. Kirvelay 248 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1976
State v. Kirvelay 248 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1976
See, State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123
State v. Rossow 247 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1976
State v. Rossow 247 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1976
The trial court found that this misconduct had not “played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict,” citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 128
State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
You better believe he won’t. Does that make the distribution any different?” The standard for review of a prosecutor’s misconduct was elaborated on in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127 , : “* * * The test of determining whether prosecutorial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of misconduct with which we are dealing.
State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
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 to be judged were elaborated on in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127 , : “* * * The test 0f determining whether prosecutorial misconduct was harmless depends partly upon the type of
State v. Holty 238 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1976
State v. Holty 238 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1976
We agree that this comment was error (see, State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , [1974], and State v. Bell, 294 Minn. 189 , [1972]), but hold that defendant waived any claim of error by failing to object and by failing to move for cautionary instructions and instead choosing to explain in closing argument why he had not called his girl friend (his explanation be
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 , , cer
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
State v. Bradley 228 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1975
State v. Bradley 228 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1975
Recently in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , we dealt with the effect of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument and indicated the tests to be applied in determining whether it required reversal: (1) Did defendant object at the trial to the misconduct?
State v. Meadows 226 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
State v. Meadows 226 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
Comments of this type are erroneous for reasons stated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123 , *79 (1974); that is, such comments erroneously might have suggested to the jury that defendant had a burden to produce witnesses and that he did not call his wife to testify (about his occupancy of the house) because he knew her testimony would be unfavorable.