Cited by

-28 (Minn. 1979); but see Ture v. State , (concluding that testifying police officer’s reference to questioning defendant in another incident justified a curative instruction but not a mistrial).

Additionally, the Minnesota Supreme C

12 We have previously held that “references to prior incarceration of a defendant can be unfairly prejudicial.” (-28 (Minn. 1979)).

“[T]he main reason for generally excluding police photographs is that the jurors might infer from them that the defendant has been involved in prior criminal conduct.” Id.; (recognizing the unfairly prejudicial nature of prior-incarceration evidence).

(recognizing the unfairly prejudicial nature of prior-incarceration evidence).

“[A]ssuming a proper objection, immaterial and irrelevant portions of an extrajudicial interrogation of a defendant should generally not be received in evidence.”

( 161-62 (Minn. 2009) (holding that failure to redact defendant’s statements about getting a lawyer from police interview was error).

It is well-settled that “references to prior incarceration of a defendant can be unfairly prejudicial.” (emphasis omitted); -28 (Minn. 1979).

(noting that a prosecutor has the right to argue that a particular defense lacks merit); (holding that the State is permitted to introduce evidence that defendant refused to speak to police after defense counsel attempted to create the impression that police “had not shown any real interest in getting defendant’s version of the events”).

(noting that a prosecutor has the right to argue that a particular defense lacks merit); (holding that the State is permitted to introduce evidence that defendant refused to speak to police after defense counsel attempted to create the impression that police “had not shown any real interest in getting defendant’s version of the events”).

-28 (Minn.1979); (finding that testifying police officer’s reference to questioning defendant in another incident justified a curative instruction but not a mistrial).

The mere fact that a “defendant waives his right and agrees to talk with the police does not mean that everything that is asked by the officers or said by the defendant in response is necessarily admissible.”

We have also held that “assuming a proper objection, immaterial and irrelevant portions of an extrajudicial interrogation of a defendant should generally not be received in evidence.” (emphasis added).

(finding no prejudice when the allegedly improper evidence was unrelated to the charged offense); (upholding a conviction, despite the trial court’s error, because the evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant’s guilt).

The admission of evidence with potential for unfair prejudice is harmless if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and it is “extremely unlikely that the evidence prompted the jury to convict where it otherwise would not have.”

In support, where a prosecutor was allowed to elicit testimony from police that they had tried to question the defendant to get a complete statement as to what he had been doing that night, but the defendant had asked for an attorney and would give no information to the police.

Any reference to a defendant’s prior record has “great potential for unfair prejudice.”

Cloud not reversible error when reference was of a passing nature and evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming); (reference to prior conviction error but not reversible when evidence of guilt was overwhelming).