Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McCray, 753 N.W.2d 746.

118 citing documents.

Michael Adam Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tony Dean Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Casey Love Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lowell Victor Abelson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Louis Boit Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Farhan Mohamed Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
orders by a district court.”
Juan Pachuco Silva v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A prosecuting attorney engages in misconduct when 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. George Luis Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when he violates clear or established standards of 7 conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lamechtric Irving Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when [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.” d 746, 751 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Alden Godbout Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Donta Jaboat Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lonny Slade Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when he violates clear or established standards of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Freddrick Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A prosecutor engages in misconduct by violating “clear or established standards of conduct” such as “rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Gabriel Macedo Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When reviewing prosecutorial misconduct pertaining to closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Horton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A prosecutor engages in misconduct by violating “clear or established standards of conduct” such as “rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“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.” (quotation omitted).
A23-0588 Minn. 2024
Where the alleged prosecutorial misconduct occurred during a closing argument, this court “look[s] to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Anthony Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Anthony Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A prosecutor engages in misconduct by violating established standards of conduct or caselaw, and “[o]ur standard of review depends on whether or not there was an objection at trial to the claimed misconduct,” d 739, 749 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Eric Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Eric Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Solien Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The prosecution commits misconduct when it “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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Thomas Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A prosecutor engages 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.’” d 746, 751 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Fields, d at 782)).
State of Minnesota v. David NMN Alonzo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Prosecutors commit misconduct when 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Edward Hansmann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
remains to be decided .” n.2 (Minn. 2008); d 297, 304 n.2 (Minn. 2016) ( listing cases questioning whether the two -tiered standard “remains viable”); State v. Graham , (noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court has “yet to decide whether the two-tiered approach for ob
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Roosevelt Delaney Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Edward Pulley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that some of the prosecutor’s statements read in isolation could be construed as misstatements but read in a broader context were not misstatements).
State of Minnesota v. Corrie Raeann Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When reviewing a closing argument for plain error, we look “to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When reviewing a closing argument for prosecutorial misconduct, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tialee Marie Grassini Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Gary Alvin Paananen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
remains to be decided ,” n.2 (Minn. 2008) ; n.2 (Minn. 2016) (noting that many “cases ha ve questioned whether the two- tiered Caron standard for reviewing objected-to misconduct remains viable,” and listing cases); (noting that the Minn
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2022
remains to be decided.” n.2 (Minn. 2008); n.2 (Minn. 2016) (noting that “[r]ecent cases have questioned whether the two-tiered Caron standard for reviewing objected-to misconduct remains viable,” and listing cases); (noting that the Min
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Scott Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A prosecutor engages in misconduct when 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. McCray , (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Rene Gabriel-Ramos Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When this court reviews a closing argument for prosecutorial misconduct, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).
Ronald Lee Schlangen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Martez Eubanks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Portia Renee Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct by violating “clear or established standards of conduct ” such as “rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Yovontre Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
First, “[t]he assessment of a witness’s credibility is exclusively the province of the [fact-finder].” State v. McCray , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mario Antonio Burciaga Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9 For this argument, he relies on State v. McCray , , 753-54 (Minn. 2008) (reversing this court’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction of second -degree criminal sexual conduct with a seven-year-old victim after concluding that the prosecutor’s closing-argument references to penetration were not misconduct) (