Cited by

Here, the state presented four witnesses to testify about the Spreigl incident, but this testimony was not redundant, and “the state had the right to present evidence of the details of the [Spreigl incident].”

When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, this court looks to “the closing argument as a whole, rather than selected phrases and remarks.”

See, (holding that a defendant’s statement that he was “going to hell” did not prove a propensity to engage in certain conduct); Ture v. State , (concluding that evidence of the defendant’s collection and storage of information on women was not bad- act evidence where there was nothing per se wrong with the habit).

When assessing whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”

(rejecting pro se claims without articulating reasoning for each argument).

See, (rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).

When assessing whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”

“Evidence of a habit or routine practice is relevant because it describes ‘one’s regular response to a repeated specific situation.’” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

(concluding that “the use of the first-person pronoun ‘I’ during closing argument .

A Spreigl act must be a “‘bad’ act.” 5 -88 (Minn. 2005); -17 (Minn. 2004) (holding that evidence that defendant collected information on women was not Spreigl evidence because there is nothing inherently wrong with collecting information on women).

(stating that “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks”).

When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”

(rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).

“[C]ourts should not allow the state, when presenting Spreigl evidence, to present evidence that is unduly cumulative with the potential to fixate the jury on the defendant’s guilt of the other crime.”

When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”

(rejecting arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).

(faulting the defendant’s failure to object when the contested testimony was introduced and holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to present 24 witnesses who testified for three days of a 12-day murder trial about the details of other- bad-acts evidence

(rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).

(rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).

(rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).

And in Ture v. State, the supreme court held that it was improper for the prosecutor to use “the first-person pronoun ‘I’ during closing argument” when addressing witness credibility because a prosecutor “may not interject his or her personal opinion so as to personally attach himself or herself to the cause which he or she represents.” (quotation and alteration omitted).

(rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).