Cited by

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

226 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(recognizing that defendant’s threats against alleged victim are evidence of consciousness of guilt).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that at least 20 pages of the prosecutor’s 80-page cross examination showed prosecutorial misconduct); -66 (Minn. 1995) (stating that several inappropriate remarks by the prosecutor in his closing warranted a new trial, including suggesting that no salv
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Griller, d at 740; (Anderson, G. Barry, J., dissenting) (stating that cumulative plain error must satisfy the Griller test).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A new trial is warranted “only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“A prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-90 (Minn. 2006) (in a drug-dealing trial, prosecutor’s statement to jury that “this is kind of foreign for all of us, I believe, because we’re not really accustomed to this drug world and drug dealing” improperly described the prosecutor and the jury as a group of which the defendant was not a part).
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(noting that the harmless- beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is appropriate when there has been an objection to prosecutorial misconduct).
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(noting that, where there has been an objection to prosecutorial misconduct but the misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, a new trial will not be granted).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(acknowledging that there is no “blanket prohibition” on “were they lying” questions, but holding that under the facts of the case, the prosecutor committed misconduct by posing such questions); (discussing the impropriety of “were they lying” ques
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
“We review prosecutorial misconduct to determine whether the conduct, ⅛ light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.’ ” ().
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
We review prosecutorial misconduct to determine whether the conduct, “in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
In his petition, Dobbins claimed that he is entitled to postconviction relief because (1) requires reversal of his conviction; (2) the State claims that he killed Lavender, yet he was charged with and convicted of aiding and abetting a crime; (3) he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel failed to raise on direct appeal certain prosecutorial misconduct cl
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
This case is not like State v. Mayhorn, in which the supreme court reversed because “the prosecutor’s misconduct was a pervasive force at trial.”
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A “prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” -87 (Minn.2006) (stating prosecutor must not appeal to passions of jury).
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(reversing based on cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary errors).
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008