Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jensen, 242 N.W.2d 109.

34 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
7 Moore , d at 433-34; aff’d on other grounds, -57 (Minn. 1976) (discussing the critical role of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., State v. Strommen, 7 (telling the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, whi ch one makes the most sense ”); (saying that the presumption of innocence is a shield for the innocent but not a cloak for the guilty); State v. Trimble , (saying that the presumption of innocence is something that disappears gradually and, after a large amount of evidence is presented, di
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But cf. State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 379, –11 (1976) (not finding misconduct where prosecutor referred to state’s witness testimony as “uncontradicted”).
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 379
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 380 , (concluding that it was misconduct to assert that “a plea of not guilty can mean one of two things: It can mean I really didn’t do it and I’m really innocent, or it can mean prove it, and every person is entitled to have it proven if they wish, and I submit that is the case here.”).
State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
See State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 380
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 380
State v. Bohlsen 526 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1994
State v. Bohlsen 526 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1994
1 This *50 argument was improper, as our decision in State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377 , makes clear.
State v. Streeter 377 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Streeter 377 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly warned prosecutors of the impropriety of calling the state’s evidence “uncontradicted.” State v. Schneider, 311 Minn, at 567, d at 722 ; State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 379
State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“The prosecutor and the defense have considerable latitude in closing argument, for neither is required to make a colorless argument.” State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 380
State v. Trimble 371 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Trimble 371 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377, 380 , (disapproving argument that presumption of innocence was a shield for the innocent, not a cloak for the guilty and that when the State has proven its case “the presumption of innocence falls like a cloak, it drops, it disappears.”) However, the prosecutor’s misstatement of the standar
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377 , State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229
State v. DeVere 261 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1977
State v. DeVere 261 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1977
As we stated in State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377 , prosecutors should avoid using the word “uncon-tradicted” when referring to the state’s evidence in closing argument because the danger exists that it will improperly suggest to the jury that the defendant has an obligation to call witnesses.
State v. Daby 260 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1977
State v. Daby 260 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1977
See, State v. Hill, Minn., State v. Miles, Minn., State v. Jensen, Minn., State v. Thomas, 307 Minn. 229
State v. Alexander 259 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
State v. Alexander 259 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
The prosecutor did improperly comment on the meaning of defendant’s not guilty plea, something we do not condone—see, State v. Miles, Minn., and State v. Jensen, Minn.
State v. Miles 255 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1977
State v. Miles 255 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1977
In State v. Jensen, Minn., we held that comments such as this are improper.
State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
We have addressed the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in two recent cases, State v. Thomas, 307 Minn. 229 , and State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377
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.