Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tate, 682 N.W.2d 169.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-79 (Minn. App. 2004) (concluding prosecuting attorney’s misstatement of the burden of proof was error, but was harmless because “taken as a whole, [the statements] do not indicate that the burden of proof was shifted”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
177 (Minn. App. 2004) (determining a statement made one day after the incident indicates circumstantial trustworthiness), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Application of Marco Quinton Hanlon for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages”); (“[T]he [challenged] statements were short comments, involving 13 lines of a 10 closing argument transcript that is 25 pages long.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The one exception is the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument that victim’s assault was “something from a horr or movie[,]” “every girl’s worst nightmare[,]” and “every mom and dad’s worst fear.” “Closing arguments should focus on the evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.” d 169, 178 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In Swanson, the court determined that any alleged error was not “sufficiently prejudicial” in light of the evidence against Swanson and the fact that “the impermissible vouching constituted only a small part of the prosecutor’s closing argument.” Swanson, d at 656; (“The [challenged] statements were short comments, involving 13 lines of a closing argument transcript that is 25 pages long.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Application of Anthony Theodore Wagoner for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Tate , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Tate , -79 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
n.1 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Tate , (stating that “[o]rdinarily, a criminal defendant seeking a new trial bears the burden of proving not only 13 that error occurred but also that it was prejudicial”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-77 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–79 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-77 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Sylvester Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Sylvester Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
were corroborated by other evidence and have not been recanted by [J.T.].” See Robinson, d at 410 (determining a statement was admissible under rule 807 when it was volunteered without suggestive or leading questions); (determining a statement was admissible under the catchall exception when “it was made the day after the incident” and was “substantially consistent” with other evidence offered by the state), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–75 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct is within the discretion of the district court, which is in the best position to appraise the effect of any misconduct.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(holding that jury was not unduly influenced by improper statements in prosecution’s closing argument amounting to 13 lines of a closing argument transcript that was 25 pages long), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Arizona v. Rafael Real Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
29, 2004); , 176 n. 1 (Minn.App.2004) (stating that because declarant “testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, the Confrontation Clause does not apply to invalidate the hearsay exception”), review denied (Minn. Sept.