Cited by

(“The prosecutor is an officer of the court charged with the affirmative obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication, not merely convictions.”).

7 Because eliciting plainly inadmissible testimony may constitute prosecutorial misconduct, see State v. Fields , the modified plain-error test therefore applies

“[A]ttempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute [prosecutorial] misconduct.” State v. Fields

State v. Fields , (citation omitted).

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

See State v. Fields , (noting that the state is free to argue that a particular witness was not credible).

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

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.”).

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 v. McCray , , 751 (Minn. 2008) (quoting State v. Fields , , 782 (Minn. 2007) ).

Prosecutorial Misconduct A prosecutor engages in misconduct if her acts “materially undermin[e] the fairness of a trial.”

“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) .

“Generally, a prosecutor ’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”

(“Generally, a prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”).

“A prosecutor may not personally endor se the credibility of a witness.”

d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007).

“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

“Generally, a prosecut or’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”

“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 , ).

(noting that prosecutorial misconduct occurs when “the prosecutor’s acts ‘have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial’ ” ()).

“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).

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.”

“Generally, a prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.” State v. Fields

“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 , ).

“Generally, a prosecutor’s acts may constitute misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”

A prosecutor commits misconduct by “seek[ ing] to introduce evidence that has previously been ruled inadmissible by the district court.” n.1 (Minn. 2007).

“[A]ttempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute misconduct.” (footnote omitted).

16, 2010); (holding that the district court accurately instructed the jury that the victim’s testimony need not be corroborated).

A defendant can meet his burden by establishing that the state’s acts violated “clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.”

to testify as to what he actually remembered.” “A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct 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.’” ().