Cited by

40 all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”

Prosecutorial misconduct will result in a new trial only when, viewed in light of the whole record, it “appears to be inexcusable and so serious 15 and prejudicial that [the] defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.”

(d 408, 419 (Minn. 1980)).

(concluding that a prosecutor’s remarks about inferences to be drawn from the evidence were permissible).

-19 (Minn. 1980); -07 (Minn. 1999).

(citing the particular -person exclusion to reject an argument for instructions on depraved-mind murder); (same); –18 (Minn. 1980) (same); (same); (same); (same); (same); (same)

is true than that it is not true.” .

In State v. Wahlberg , a prosecutor commented in closing argument that a defense expert was “paid to give a diagnosis favorable” to the defendant.

The same is true of our decision in State v. Wahlberg , , 417-18 (Minn. 1980).

present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” State v. Wahlberg

State v.Wahlberg , , 417 (Minn. 1980) (emphasis added) (first citing State v. Hanson , 286 Minn. 317 , 328-29, , 614-15 (1970) ; then citing State v. Lowe , 66 Minn. 296 , 68 N.W.

t he prosecutor commented in closing argument that a defense expert was paid to give a diagnosis favorable to the defendant.

While it is improper to assert, without grounds, that a professional witness is testifyi ng in a predetermined manner for money, such is not the case here, where the prosecutor merely referred to the witness as a paid expert; Dr. Wigren testified that he was being paid.

A factfinder may consider intoxication "in determining whether [the defendant] acted with intent and premeditation.” (emphasis added).

See, (“[A] lawyer may not speculate without a factual basis.” ()); -20 (Minn. 1980) (“Counsel have the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (citing Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405 , )).

does not create the presumption that a person is incapable of intending to commit a certain act.”

We have made clear that the statute covers only acts “committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons; the act must be committed without a special design upon the particular person or persons with whose murder the accused is charged.”

present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” ( review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008)).

-20 (Minn. 1980) (holding that a prosecutor has “the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”).

It is unprofessional conduct[, however,] for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.’ ” Bobo, d at 142 (); see McCray, d at 753-54 ; -20 (Minn.1980).

d 408, 418 (Minn. 1980).

other-crimes evidence, failure to do so is not ordinarily reversible error.”); (“While a trial court should generally still provide [limiting] instructions sua sponte to ensure that the 404(b) evidence is not used for an improper purpose, the failure to provide limiting instructions absent a request is not reversible error.”); (“It would have been better, in the instant case, had the trial court given a limiting instruction sua sponte [regarding prior bad acts], but its failure to do so is not r

is true than that it is not true.”

not true.” State 4 v. Wahlberg, 2 A district court may assign criminal- history points for a prior out-of-state felony conviction “only if [the out-of-state conviction] would both be defined as a felony in Minnesota, and the offender received a sentence that in Minnesota would be a felony-level sentence.” Minn. Sent.