Cited by

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

151 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when she 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.”
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rip Wayne Rust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “the state is free to argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
A. In determining whether misconduct occurred, we look at whether the prosecutor’s acts “have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant further alleges that the prosecutor admitted irrelevant, false, and inadmissible evidence from A.D.’s physical exam, d 777 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Thomas Lord Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Thomas Lord Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Prosecutorial error results from violations of a district court’s orders, including “attempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Misstatements of the burden of proof also constitute prosecutorial misconduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield 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
see, (holding that the prosecutor’s brief comments that a witness was “very sincere” and “very frank in his testimony” were arguments regarding credibility and therefore were not improper vouching), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[A]ttempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence may constitute misconduct.”).
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
It is misconduct for a prosecutor to ask questions calculated to elicit “clearly inadmissible evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court denied Bell’s motion, reading a curative instruction to the jury that the USDA employee’s statement about Bell wrapping a puppy in a wet rag and putting it in the freezer was to be disregarded.7 “Ordinarily, evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts of a defendant is not admissible to show behavior consistent with the character of that defendant.” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ) (other citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A prosecutor’s actions may be misconduct if they have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial or if they violate “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. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
A prosecutor engages in prosecu-torial 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.”
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
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. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008