Cited by

d 645, 654 (Minn. 2006).

“A district court’s ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment of a defendant is reviewed under a clear abuse of discretion st andard.”

See, (holding that the alleged misconduct did not permeate the entire argument because it was “ limited to a few lines in a 48-page closing argument”); (holding that the misconduct was harmless because it was “confined to roughly two pages of transcript of a record comprising over 1,200 pages” and there was other strong evidence of guilt).

“If credibility is a central issue in the case, the fourth and fifth Jones factors weigh in favor of admission of the prior convictions.”

d 884, 888-89 (Minn. App. 2006), vacated in part (Minn. Dec.

Labatte relies heavily on State v. Swanson

(rejecting a claim of prosecutorial misconduct when the evidence of defendant’s guilt was strong and the prosecutor’s misconduct isolated); (noting that even when a prosecutor improperly commented on a defendant’s guilt or the truthfulness of a witn

State v. Swanson , , 653 (Minn. 2006).

2 5 1 ( 2 0 1 4 ) ( “ [ A ] prosecution for or conviction of the crime of kidnapping is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime c ommitted during the time of the kidnapping.”); (“A .

at 621; -60 (Minn. 2006) (stating that “[i]f a kidnapping is completely incident al to another offense and the imposition of a separate conviction for kidnapping unfair ly exaggerates the criminality of a defendant’s conduct, the kidnapping conviction and sentence may be vacated”).

A prosecutor “cannot use a defendant ’s exercise of his right of confrontation to impeach the credibility of his testimony, at least in the absence of evidence that the defendant has tailored his testimony to fit the state’ s case.” -58 (Minn. 2006).

“[A] district court should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed the Jones factors.” State v. Swanson

“If credibility is a central issue in the case, the fourth and fifth Jones factors weigh in favor of admission of the prior convictions.”

e impeachment value of the prior crime, (2) the date of the conviction and the defendant’ s subsequent history, (3) the similarity of the past crime with the charged crime (the greater the similarity, the greater the reason for not permitting use of the prior crime to impeach), (4) the importance of defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.” (d 534, 538 (Minn. 1978)).

State v. Swanson , , 656 (Minn. 2006).

“[A] district court should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed the Jones factors.”

In State v. Swanson , the supreme court held that the prosecutor’s statement that “[t]he state believes [a particular witness] is very believable” was “impermissible vouching on its face because the state directly endorsed the credibility of [that] witness.” d 645, 656 (Minn. 2006) (emphasis added).

In Minnesota, a prosecutor may not “personally endorse the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Swanson

Furthermore, the purpose of admitting prior convictions is to permit the jury to see “the whole person of th e defendant and better evaluate his or her truthfulness.” (quotation omitted).

Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when a prosecutor “expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted); (concluding that prosecution impermissi bly vouched for credibility of w itness when it said that state “believed” witness was “believable”).

“It is inconsistent with our precedent and with our notion of fairness to conclude that once a defendant chooses to stipulate to evidence he was unsuccessful in getting excluded he has waived the opportunity to argu e on appeal that the court erred in admitting the evidence.” d 645, 654 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

-59 (Minn. 2006) (requiring intentional participation of accomplice to extend criminal liability to accomplice).

“[A] district court should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed the Jones factors.” State v. Swanson

ched with some of his prior convictions after he testified on direct examination that he would not have had contact with the victim “if I was ever told not to have contact with her, especially by a judge of the law.” “A district court’s ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment of a defendant is reviewed under a clear abuse of discretion standard.”

5 Similarity of prior conviction with charged crime “The more similar the alleged offense a nd the crime underlying a past conviction, the more likely it is that the conviction is more prejudicial than probative.”

Ultimately, we will reverse a conviction “only if the [prosecutorial] miscond uct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Swanson , .

In any event, the supreme court has stated, “If credibility is a central issue in the case, the fourth and fifth Jones factors weigh in favor of admission of the prior convictions.”