Cited by

But the reality is no one else was there.” Scott is correct that, in certain circumstances, a prosecutor commits misconduct by stating that a witness is lying, see State v. M ayhorn, (concluding that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making a personal assessment of a witness’s credibility),3 or by disparaging the defense, Peltier, d at 804; (M inn.

Factors to consider when determining whether misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt include (1) the frequency of the improper remarks, (2) whether cautionary jury instructions were given, see id., and (3) the strength of the state’s other evidence, see Caron, d at 200.

Since Caron, however, and the “continued viability of the two-tiered approach set forth in State v. Caron .

had somehow put his bag with the methamphetamine into the center console and, for whatever odd reason, the defendant had placed his bag either in the passenger’s side seat or behind [J.I.].” 11 in which the supreme court stated that “a prosecutor is not a member of the jury, so to use ‘we’ and ‘us’ is inappropriate and may be an effort to appeal to the jury’s passions.” Id.

“When credibility is a central issue, [appellate courts] pay[] special attention to statements that may inflame or prejudice the jury.”

Since Caron, however, the Minnesota Supreme 16

State v. Mayhorn , -89 (Minn. 2006).

See, -92 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that the cumulative effect of 12 errors, which included “pervasive” and “unprecedented” prosecutorial misconduct as well as evidentiary errors, denied the defendant a fair trial).

State v. Mayhorn , -88 (Minn. 2006).

(stating that it is misconduct to intentionally misstate evidence).

See, e.g., State v. Mayhorn , 91 (Minn. 2006) (noting several types of mi sconduct in single trial) ; Matthews, d at 552-53 (noting short duration of misconduct and district court’s mitigating instructions).

For example, the supreme court reversed a conviction based on two evidentiary errors and at least ten specific instances of pro secutorial misconduct, which constituted a “pervasive force at trial.” d 776, 791-92 (Minn. 2006).

State v. Bauer , 15 see also State v. Mayhorn , -85 (Minn. 2006) (determining that the district court erred in admitting strained relationship evidence because the state failed to prove the prior conflict between the relevant parties by clear and convincing evidence); -91 (Minn. App. 2011) (applying requirement of clear

A prosecutor must not “appeal to the passions of the jury.” -87 (Minn. 2006).

See, (finding cumulative error when 12 trial errors deprived the appellant of a fair trial); State v. 10 Finally, in a pro se supplemental brief, Stevenson appears to contest the basis for his stop, the effectiveness of his lawyer, the events surrounding his arrest, and various other aspects of t

” State v. Mayhorn , -87 (Minn. 2006) (quotations omitted) .

“[A] prosecutor is not a member of the jury, so to use ‘we’ and ‘us’ is inappropriate and may be an effort to appeal to the jury’s passions.”

In State v. Mayhorn, the supreme court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the “unprecedented” scope of the prosecutor’s misconduct, which was “a pervasive force at trial” because “[a]t least 20 pages of the prosecutor’s 80-page cross-examination of the defendant evince[d] prosecutorial misconduct.” -92 (Minn. 2006) (emphasis added).

Danquah claims that the prosecutor sought to appeal to the jury’s passions and prejudices by evoking “imagery of men ‘prey[ing]’ on children” and equating “criminal 12 defendants to hungry animals.” -87 (Minn. 2006) (stating that prosecutor must not appeal to passions of the jury).

State v. Mayhorn , , 788 (Minn. 2006).

expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted); (finding prosecutorial misconduct when prosecutor referred to a defense witness named “Lyra” as aptly named).

If all three prongs are met, the court assesses whether the error “should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Id.; (holding that no new trial will be ordered unless the verdict rendered may be attributable to the error in question).

(considering unobjected-to errors in a cumulative -error analysis); State v. Mayhorn , (considering objected-to evidentiary errors and unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct in a cumulative-error analysis).

d 776, 791 (Minn. 2006).

C. Cumulative Effect of the Errors We “are mindful that the constitution guarantees a fair trial—not a perfect or error- free trial.”

Lewis compares this case to State v. Mayhorn , in which the supreme court reversed the appellant’s conviction, despite the state’s “strong ca se against [him],” because “[t]he prosecutor’s misconduct was a pervasive force at trial.” d 776, 791 (Minn. 2006).

d 776, 786-87 (Minn. 2006).

d 776, 787 (Minn. 2006) ; Coleman, d at 782.

State v. Mayhorn , -87 (Minn. 2006).

“[T]here must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”