Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carlson, 264 N.W.2d 639.

34 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Based on the record, we cannot determine whether [the witness’s] violation of the trial court’s order was intentional or not; nonetheless, it was misconduct attributable to the prosecutor.”); (noting the state must prepare its witnesses so they “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial”); (“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statem
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This preparation ensures witnesses “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In response, the state acknowledges caselaw stating that a prosecutor “has some responsibility for preparing his witnesses in such a way that they will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A prosecuting attorney “has a duty to prepare [their] witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” (d 639, 641 (Minn. 1978)).
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“attach[ing] importance to whether .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The state must prepare its witnesses so they “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The state must prepare its witnesses so they “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifyi ng, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” State v. 6 McNeil, (citing State v. Carlson , d 639, 641 (Minn. 1978)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The state must also prepare its witnesses so that they “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The state must prepare its witnesses so that th ey “will not blurt out 13 anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A prosecutor is responsible for pr eparing the state’s witnesses so that they “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The 12 state must prepar e its witnesses so that they “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.” State v. Carlson
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
( (citing State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 155 -56, )).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Moreover, “[t]he state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” d 228, 232 (Minn. App. 2003) (), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003); see also State v. Hogetvedt , (“The state has a duty to ensure that its witnesses know the limits of permissible testimony.”), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Deeforest Mentay Houston Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deeforest Mentay Houston Minn. Ct. App. 2016
And a prosecutor must prepare “his witnesses in such a way that they will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
responsibility for preparing his witnesses in such a way that they will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial.”
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
See, (discussing the theory of “curative admissibility,” whereby one party may introduce evidence to refute the impression created by the other party’s evidence).
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(citing State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , ).
State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
State v. Blanchard 315 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1982
State v. Blanchard 315 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1982
Although the prosecutor does have “some responsibility for preparing his witnesses in such a way that they will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial,” the introduction of the other-crimes evidence at issue does not warrant reversal.
State v. Hudson 311 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1981
State v. Hudson 311 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1981
the principal blame for what happened rests with defense counsel, who knew that defendant had been in jail the previous year and yet asked the witness if defendant had been living with her “for about two years continuously” before the incident in question.