DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 324 N.W.2d 199.

38 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “Generally, arguments that invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “[A]rguments that invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Santos is correct that it is improper for the state to “invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim.” ().
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The district court correctly sustained Okins’s objections to the voir dire questions and to the closing-argument statements because they improperly constituted statements by a prosecutor “that invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Dustin Brock Metcalfe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Dustin Brock Metcalfe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Metcalfe contends that these statements constitute plain error by improperly inviting the jurors to put themselves in E.W.’s shoes, relying on the supreme court’s statement that “arguments that invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.” ().
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Generally, “arguments that invite the jurors to put th emselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.” (stating that it is misconduct for prosecutor to evoke sympathy for the victim).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Such a request or invitation is improper because it may “cause the jury to decide the case on the basis of passion rather than reason.” See State v. Johnson
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    But the prosecutor may not request that the jurors “put themselves in the shoes of the victim,” or “look at their own experiences as proof that the defendant’s defense is not credible,”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    B. Impact on the Children Grazzini-Rucki argues that the state’s discussion of the impact of Grazzini-Rucki’s actions on her children improperly urged jurors to “put themselves in the shoes of the victim,” or evoked juror sympathy by commenting on issues unrelated to the evidence, - 35 (Minn. App. 2003).
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
    It is improper to request that the jurors “put themselves in the shoes of the victim,” or “look at their own experiences as proof that the defendant’s defense is not credible,”
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
    See, (stating that it was improper for the prosecutor to suggest that jurors put themselves into the victim’s shoes).
  • State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
    Similarly, we have stated that arguments that ask jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are generally improper, and we have condemned arguments that invite the jury to speculate about the facts
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
    Further, “arguments that invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.”
  • State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    “Generally, arguments that invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.”
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    The prosecutor’s comments did not ask the jury to place “themselves in the shoes of the victim” and “decide the case on the basis of passion rather than reason.” see also Thaggard, d at 812 .
  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
    In State v. Johnson, we stated the general rule that “arguments that invite the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.”
  • State v. Thaggard 527 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Thaggard 527 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Erdman 383 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Erdman 383 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    arguments inviting jurors to put themselves “in the shoes of the victim” are generally improper in form.