Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fields, 730 N.W.2d 777.

154 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Lawrence Benson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
concerning the witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” In Minnesota, “evidence of commission of a theft, while not directly involving false statement or dishonesty, may be admitted in the discretion of the district court as evidence of truthfulness or untruthfulness.”
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Juneau Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“However, the state is free to argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”
State of Minnesota v. Edbin Jose Coreas Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The prosecutor is an officer of the cour t charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.” d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007) “A prosecutor e ngages in prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” -35 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Donail Walker, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.”).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Lee Bush Minn. Ct. App. 2021
7 Because eliciting plainly inadmissible testimony may constitute prosecutorial misconduct, see State v. Fields , the modified plain-error test therefore applies
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Katherine James Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[A]ttempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute [prosecutorial] misconduct.” State v. Fields
State of Minnesota v. Curtis James Rath Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Fields , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kim Dale Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Olga Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Wendt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Prosecutorial misconduct “results from violations of clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” State v. Fields
State of Minnesota v. Raheem Ali Beamon Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Bernard Nowels Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Tamico Annette Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Fields , (noting that the state is free to argue that a particular witness was not credible).
State of Minnesota v. Hussen Hassan Hussen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Thomas Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jerwulu D. Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Fransion Jenkins, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Deandre Johnson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Reginald Oranz Calhoun v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
More importantly, when determining whether misconduct occurred, this court looks at whether the prosecutor’s acts “have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.” State v. Fields
State of Minnesota v. Blayon Lawrence Yuoh Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Edward Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Fields , (“The prosecutor is an officer of t h e c o u r t c h a r g e d w i t h t h e a ffirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.”).
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The prosecutor is an officer of the court who must balance advocacy for the state’s position with an “obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication .” ; see also State v. Graham , (stating that “a prosecutor must be more than just an advocate for” the state).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Oliver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
" State v. McCray , , 751 (Minn. 2008) (quoting State v. Fields , , 782 (Minn. 2007) ).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Prosecutorial Misconduct A prosecutor engages in misconduct if her acts “materially undermin[e] the fairness of a trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Devon Larry Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, a prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have 20 the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a t rial.” d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007) .
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Berdell Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, a prosecutor ’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Yassin Ali Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“Generally, a prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A prosecutor may not personally endor se the credibility of a witness.”
State of Minnesota v. Donald Charles Ancke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Brock Dupree Lam Seawright Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.” State v. Fields
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Conway Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Roger Edward Naghash Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, a prosecut or’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Karyl Antone Ingalls Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A prosecutor engages in pros ecutorial misconduct when he violates ‘clear or established standards of co nduct, e.g., rules, laws , orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.’” (quoting State v. Fields , ).
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
(noting that prosecutorial misconduct occurs when “the prosecutor’s acts ‘have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial’ ” ()).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Anthony Tong Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.” d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. William Mcsho Hall, II Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Violations of established standards of conduct, including “orders by a district court” and “attempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissi ble evidence may constitute [prosecutorial] misconduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Galgalo Jarso Hache Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Generally, a prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.” State v. Fields
State of Minnesota v. Solomon Washington McIntyde Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial mi sconduct when he violates ‘clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.’” (quoting State v. Fields , ).
State of Minnesota v. Rickey Maddox Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Generally, a prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Desmond Lamart Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A prosecutor commits misconduct by “seek[ ing] to introduce evidence that has previously been ruled inadmissible by the district court.” n.1 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A]ttempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute misconduct.” (footnote omitted).
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
16, 2010); (holding that the district court accurately instructed the jury that the victim’s testimony need not be corroborated).
State of Minnesota v. Prince Antonio Dequante Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016