Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Clark, 296 N.W.2d 359.

65 citing documents.

Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If it’s any one of these things, maybe, maybe you can make an absurd leap like that, but they’re asking you to consistently take absurd leaps about everything in this case, and that’s totally unreasonable.” Foster argues that the prosecutor plainly erred by impermissibly expressing a personal opinion regarding the defendant’s guilt, calling the defendant a liar in closing argument, 791 (Minn. 2006), shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, McDaniel, d at 750, commenting on the defendant’s
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-68 (Minn. 1980), and Fields, d at 783, to support his argument.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Further, a pr osecutor’s closing argument mus t not be intended to “inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury against the defendant.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
A prosecutor’s closing argument should be based on the evidence and “should not be calculated to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury.”
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
(noting that prosecutor’s closing argument should be based on the evidence *393 and “not be calculated to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury against the defendant”).
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
-68 (Minn.1980) (holding admission of evidence of auto theft not resulting in a conviction was proper under Rule 608(b) because “theft of the type described is sufficiently akin to crimes of dishonesty, such as forgery, bribery, fraud, and perjury, typically viewed as relevant to veracity”).
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
Our focus on review is “whether the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of inno *390 cence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the crime charged.”
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
(citing State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1 , ).
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
: While Miranda bars the prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made during a custodial interrogation without first effectively waiving constitutional rights, it does not preclude use of such statements for impeachment purposes so long as the statements are voluntary and trustworthy.
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(harmless error because defendant elicited on cross-examination the same testimony on his exercise of the right to remain silent).
State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Forbord 398 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Forbord 398 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
State v. Coulthard 379 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Coulthard 379 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Moreover, appellant opened up this topic, and the extent of cross-examination is a matter left largely to the discretion of the court.
State v. Doughman 368 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Doughman 368 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(Minn.1980) quoting State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450, 455 , 231 N.W.
State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
quoting State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450, 455 , 231 N.W.
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(Minn.1980) quoting State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450, 455 , 231 N.W.
State v. Mattson 359 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1984
State v. Mattson 359 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1984
Under either this approach or the more traditional ap proach — — we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.
State v. Hitch 356 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hitch 356 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1984