Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mayhorn, 720 N.W.2d 776.

226 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“If the state intends to present relationship evidence, it bears the bur den of proving that the incident at issue actually involved the relevant parties in the present case.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Fields, the 2 See State v. Mayhorn , (finding misconduct where prosecutor asked whether defendant knew last name of potential witness and questioned whether that witness could have helped with defendant’s alibi); State v. Redd, 310 Minn. 145, 146, d 257, 258 (1976) (finding misco nduct where prosecutor argued in closing t
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A prosecutor may not “give [his] own opinion about the credibility of a witness in closing argument.” State v. Mayhorn
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant argues that the prosecutor attempted to align the prosecution with the jury by stating that “[w]e don’t want [bad things] to happen.” “[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.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 776, 788 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “[i]t is well settled that a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant’s failure to call a witness.”
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[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.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrea Deshawn Wilkes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrea Deshawn Wilkes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A prosecutor commits misconduct by 9 intentionally misstating evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A defendant is deprived of a procedurally fair trial when “the number of errors and the seriousness of some of them” render us “unable to determine whether the jury based its verdict on the admissible evidence and the reasonable inferences derived therefrom.”
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (holding that the cumulative effect of 12 errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial); (concluding that the cumulative effect of three errors required reversal).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When credibility is a central issue, this court pays special attention to statements that may inflame or prejudice the jury.” -87 (Minn. 2006) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
to support his position.
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
11 for the proposition that the prosecutor improperly aligned herself with the jury.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(explaining how such a comment prejudices a criminal defendant).
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary errors denied the defendant’s right to a fair trial).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
16 and by basing a closing argument on facts not in evidence.
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–87 (Minn. 2006) (“A prosecutor must not appeal to the passions of the jury.”).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant is deprived of a procedurally fair trial when “the number of errors and the seriousness of some of them” render us “unable to determine whether the jury based its verdict on the admissible evidence and the reasonable inferences derived therefrom.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant is deprived of a procedurally fair trial when “the number of errors and the seriousness of some of them” render us “unable to determine whether the jury based its verdict on the admissible evidence and the reasonable inferences derived therefrom.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that if the state has engaged in misconduct, defendant will not be granted new trial if misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if verdict rendered was surely unattributable to misconduct).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015