Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02…, 876 N.W.2d 297.

73 citing documents.

Abraham Deng Woi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Second, “the prejudicial effect of misconduct can be cured by proper instructions to the jury.” -27 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that “the prosecutor’s misstatement of the standard [did] not require reversal beca use the [district] cour t fully instructed the jury on [the] presumption of innocence”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Gilberto Guzman-Diaz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(alleged prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the prosecutor “did not refer to the [prejudicial] answer at any other point in the trial ”); (a prejudicial comment did not entitle the defendant to a mistrial where i
State of Minnesota v. Donald Charles Ancke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To determine whether prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, courts evaluate “how the improper evidence was presented, whether the State emphasized it, whether it was highly persuasive, and whether the defendant countered it.”
Ismael Hernandez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Conway Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Paul Miguel Engen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, “the prejudicial effe ct of misconduct can be cured by proper instructions to the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Renae Dawn Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When prosecutorial misconduct is alleged, our “standard of review depends on whether the defendant objected at trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Anthony Tong Minn. Ct. App. 2017
n.2 (Minn. 2016); (applying standard for unusually serious misconduct without deciding the continued application of the Caron test).
State of Minnesota v. Trevor Joseph Steven Kottke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alexander Lott Minn. Ct. App. 2017
12 “Where such misconduct is alleged, the standard of review depends on whether the defendant objected at trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to reasonably effective assistance of counsel.”
Followed State of Minnesota v. Desmond Lamart Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Moreover, the supreme court recently referred to an appellant’s claim that “the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduc t by failing to adequately prepare [the state’s witness] to testify and eliciting inad missible testimony from him” as a claim of “prosecutorial misconduct.” State v. Whitson , 4 (Minn. 2016).
Seth Clayton Francis Crawford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Seth Clayton Francis Crawford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But “we need not address both prongs of the [Strickland] test if one is determinative.”
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court “strongly presume[s] that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”
Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
“We review a postconviction court’s decision to deny a petition, including its decision to deny the petition without granting an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Aloeng Kelly Vang, A14-1574 881 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aloeng Kelly Vang, A14-1574 881 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2016
“[W]e need not address both prongs of the [Strickland] test if one is determinative.”
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 including its decision to deny the petition without granting an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”