Cited by

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.”

In addition, “the state is free to argue that part icular witnesses were or were not credible.” (quotation omitted).

" State v. McCray , , 751 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Ture v. State , , 19 (Minn. 2004) ).

“The assessment of a witness’s credibility is exclusively the province of the jury.” (quotation omitted).

The prosecut or’s questions did not violate “clear or established standards of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

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

This may occur when the prosecutor “violates clear or established standards of conduct.” State v. McCray , (quotation omitted).

at 105-06 ( 10 (Minn. 2008)).

The prosecutor’s limited use of unobjected-to leading questions did not violate “clear or established standards of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

A prosecutor errs by violating “clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district 7 court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. McCray , ( “A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when he violates clear or establish ed standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” (quotation omitted)).

This may occur when the prosecutor “violates ‘clear or established standards of conduct.’” (quoting Fields, d at 782).

A prosecutor commits misconduct if she violates “established standards of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

Furthermore, “the assessment of a witness’s credibility is exclusively the province of the jury.” State v. McCray , (quotation omitted).

“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 , ).

Pittman v. Tahash, 284 Minn. 365 , (noting that we “cannot condone the actions” of a prosecutor who “ma[de] available for publication” various statements which “seriously threatened to have [an] effect upon prospective jurors residing in the community”), as well as ABA Standards of Conduct, (“We have previously looked to ABA standards as a model when evaluating claims of .

“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 , ).

“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.” (citation omitted) .

“The assessment of a witness’s credibility is exclusively the province of the [factfinder].” State v. McCray , (quotation omitted).

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.’” ().

Prosecutorial Misconduct When reviewing an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, this court “look[s] to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”

Appellant asserts plain error occurred in this case because the statements were a “direct endorsement of [A.K.T.’s] credibility.” “The assessment of a witness’s credibility ‘is exclusively the province of the jury,’” (d 584, 589 (Minn. 2007)), and “[i]t is improper for the state to express a personal opinion on [a witness’s] credibility.”

“The determination of the propriety of a prosecutor’s closing argument is within the sound discretion of the [district] court.” -52 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

–54 (Minn. 2008) (quoting with approval ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, which provide that “[i]n closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record”).

“A prosecutor engages in prosecu-torial misconduct when [the prosecutor] *335 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 Fields, d at 782 ).

See, n.10 (Minn. 2011); n.2 (Minn. 2008).

“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).

(“We have recognized that the state is free to argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.” (quotation omitted)).

at 390 n.8 (quoting State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, ); n.2 (Minn. 2008) (“leav[ing] .