Cited by

“It is improper to request that the jurors put themselves in the shoes of the victim.” (quotation omitted).

Indeed, the supreme court has stated that “[a] prosecutor’s closing argument need not be colorless, so long as it is based on the evidence or reasonable inferences from that evidence.” -92 (Minn. 2008).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

In addition, the binding precedent must be “conclusively resolved.”

Nevertheless, “[a] prosecutor’s closing argument need not be colorless, so long as it is based on the evidence or reasonable inferences from that evidence.” -92 (Minn. 2008).

(“An error is plain if it contravenes a principle that is conclusively resolved at the time of appeal.” (quotation omitted)); ( “Because neither th is court nor the federal courts have conclusively resolved this issue, we cannot say that the prosecutor [committed an error that was plain].”).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” 13 (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” As Beasley notes, the district court did not provide a relationship- evidence instruction during final jury instructions.

(stating that plain error did not exist because “neither this court nor the federal courts have conclusively resolved this issue ”); (reasoning that, even if jury instruction was erroneous, error was not plain because applicability of Ste

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

see Martin, d at 106 (recognizing that the state may “argue that a witness was or was not credible”).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

-14 (Minn. 1997); -91 (Minn. 2008) (explaining that a prosecutor may not make “gratuitous” or “unfair” character attacks on a defendant).

The argument must be “based on the evidence or reasonable inferences from that evidence.” -92 (Minn. 2008).

First, “[a]n error is plain if it contravenes a principle that is ‘conclusively resolved’ at the time of appeal.” ().

“Usually, prosecutorial error is clear or obvious if the prosecutor’s conduct contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

Evidence is clear and convincing when “the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear or obvious.”

at 423 ( (granting no relief for the defendant because the alleged error could not have been plain) (other citations omitted)).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

The argument “need not be colorless, so long as it is based on the evidence or reasonable inferences from that evidence.” -92 (Minn. 2008).

(“Because neither this court nor the federal courts have conclusively resolved this issue, we cannot say that the prosecutor ‘contravene[d] case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’ ” (quoting Ramey, d at 302)); (explaining that to sa

( (granting no relief for the defendant because the alleged error could not have been plain); -19 (Minn. 2002) (analyzing the underlying legal questions and finding no error) (other citation omitted)); see also Davis, d at 727 (analyzing only the first pron

d 677, 695 (Minn. 2008) .