Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Swanson, 707 N.W.2d 645.

279 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court “should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed the Jones factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that arguments that witness was “very believable” appear to vouch for witness’s credibility).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled “that a district court should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed the Jones factors.”
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A prosecutor may not personally endorse the credibility of a witness or impliedly guarantee a witness’s truthfulness.”); (holding that the statement “[T]he state believes [the witness] is very believable” constituted impermissible vouching); (holding that prosecutor’s statement “I suggest that [the witness ] was a very credible witness” was “not [an]
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We will reverse a conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct “only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to 9 a fair trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 645, 658–59 (Minn. 2006) (stating that accomplice liability attaches when one “plays 9 some knowing role in the commission of the crime and takes no steps to thwart its completion”) (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In light of well-established caselaw that a prosecutor may not personally endorse the credibility of a witness, d 645, 656 (Minn. 2006), we determine that the prosecutor’s error was plain.
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Jurors can infer the necessary intent from factors including: defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, defendant’s close association with the principal before and after the crime, defendant’s lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and defendant’s flight from the scene of the crime with the principal.”
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] prior conviction can have impeachment value by helping the jury see the ‘whole person’ of the defendant and better evaluate his or her truthfulness.”
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] district court should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed the Jones factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When evaluating alleged misconduct, a court will look at the closing argument as a whole.”
Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
C. Statement that A.L. must be believed Finally, appellant argues that the prosecutor’s remark, “[A.L.] must be believed” (holding that a prosecutor’s statement that “‘the state believes [one of the witnesses] is very believable’” was “impermissible vouching on its face because the state directly endorsed the credibility of [that] witness”).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(quoting Jones, d at 538).
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Id.; aff’d, review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The jury may infer the necessary intent from the circumstances of the crime, including the “defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, defendant’s close association with the principal before and after the crime, [and] defendant’s lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(quoting Jones, d at 538).
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Davis, d at 681–82; d 645, 657–58 (Minn. 2006); –17 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Furthermore, “a prior conviction can have impeachment value by helping the jury see the ‘whole person’ of the defendant and better evaluate his or her truthfulness.”