Cited by

by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” (quotation omitted).

“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).

“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).

“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).

“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).

orders by a district court.”

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).

“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).

“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).

“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).

“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).

“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when he violates clear or established standards of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“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.’” ().

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.” ().

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).

“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.’” ().

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.” ().

“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).

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).

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).

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).

“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)).

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).

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

(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).

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).

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).

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

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

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.

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).

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.”

First, “[t]he assessment of a witness’s credibility is exclusively the province of the [fact-finder].” State v. McCray , (quotation omitted).

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) (