Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cabrera, 700 N.W.2d 469.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(reviewing prosecutor’s injection of race in closing arguments under serious-misconduct standard).
Marcus Anthony Baker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Douglas Allan Treu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
uld be granted a new trial “in the interest of justice.” In the exercise of its supervisory role over the trial courts to prevent the recurrence of prosecutorial or judicial misconduct, the Minnesota Supreme Court has, on occasion, awarded a new trial “in the interests of justice” in “exceptional circumstances.” See
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
475 (Minn. 2005) (“The prosecutor is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” (quotations omitted)); Minn. R. Prof.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Moreover, “it is improper to inject race into a closing argument when race is not relevant.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A prosecutor “is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
at 820; (reversing a conviction due to a prosecutor’s “improper injection” of race as an issue at trial after we had issued prior warnings that such statements must be scrupulously avoided).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Misc onduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “if the verdict actually rendere d was surely unattributab le to the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Jackson , (“We emphasize .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Cabrera , (“It [is] up to the jury to judge the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 469, 475 (Minn. 2005) (“It [is] up to the jury to judge the weight a nd credibility of the witnesses’ testimony.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–75 (Minn. 2005) (holding that suggestion by state that the defense theory amounted to “racist speculation” was serious prosecutorial misconduct).
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
-75 (Minn.2005) (reversing defendant’s conviction in the interests of justice because of “serious prosecutorial misconduct” through “improper injection of race into [the] closing argument”).
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
Salitros, d at 820 ; Kaiser, d at 387 .
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
A prosecutor “is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” () (internal quotation marks removed).
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
severity of the misconduct.” (noting that it has not been determined whether the two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , “should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct” ()); -74 (Minn.2005).
State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See, (reversing in interests of justice based on “serious prosecutorial misconduct” in interjecting race into closing argument); (holding that prosecutor’s attempt to supply a race-based explanation for witnesses’ behavior improperly invited jury to apply racia
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
ear to be the result of oversight or mistake, not deliberate attempts to hide facts or surprise the defense”), (stating that, although prosecutor’s comments were inappropriate, she did not use race to disparage defendant and her argument had basis in record, thus rendering reversal in interests of justice inappropriate), (reversing in interests of justice based on “serious prosecutorial misconduct” in interjecting race into closing argument).
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
at 299 n. 4 (discussing two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , *390 200 (1974), 8 and “leaving] for another day the question of whether the Caron two-tiered approach should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct”); -74 (Minn.2005) (applying the Caron standard to objected-to prosecutorial misconduct).
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
We have held that “[t]he prosecutor is a ‘minister of justice’” and is obligated “‘to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.’ ” (quoting 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function 3-1.1 and commentary at 3.7 (2d ed.1979)).
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
See, -75 (Minn.2005) (applying the Caron standard to objected-to prosecutorial misconduct).
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
We have repeatedly stated that “it is improper to inject race into a closing argument when race is not relevant.”
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
We have repeatedly stated that a “prosecutor is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” (quoting I ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function 3-1.1 and Commentary at 3.7 (2d ed.1979)) (internal quotations omitted).