Cited by

d 677, 695 (Minn. 2008) .

An error does not contravene caselaw, and therefore is not plain error, if “neither [the state appellate] court nor the federal courts have conclusively resolved [the] issue.”

-93 (Minn. 2008) (holding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument did not affect defendant’s substantial rights when there was strong evidence of defendant’s guilt and defendant’s credibility was undermined, the alleged misconduct were not significant parts of the state’s closing argument, defe

An alleged error does not contravene case law unless the issue is “conclusively resolved.”

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

An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is “conclusively resolved.”

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

The standard requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence but le ss than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jones , (quotation omitted).

State v. Jones , (noting that alternative-perpetrator defens e opens the door to state pr esenting evidence tending to exculpate alleged alternate perpetrators).

“Reverse-Spreigl” evidence has been referred to by the supreme court as “evidence of an alternative perpetrator’s prior bad acts.” (Jones II).

See, e.g. , State v. Coleman , (concluding that the defendant’s claim of error was not viable because it could not have affected his substantial rights); d 677, 689 (Minn. 2008) (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).

An alleged error does not contrave ne caselaw unless the issue is “conclusively resolved.” State v. Jones

When determining whether a prosecuting attorney has overstepped these lines, an appellate court considers “the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks.” (Mi nn.

4 See State v. Jones , (noting that an error is plain if it “is clear or obvious”); (stating that it is plain error for a prosecutor to intentionally elicit inadmissible testimony).

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

An allege d error does not contravene case law unless the issue is “conclusively resolved.” State v. Jones

An alleged error does not contravene case law unless the issue is “conclusively resolved.” State v. Jones

“An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is ‘conclusively resolved.’” State v. Hollins , ().

“When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, we consider the argument as a whole, rather th an focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” d 677, 691 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).

When reviewing whether a prosecutor’s argument went too far, appellate courts consider “the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks.” (quotations omitted).

“When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, we consider the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotations omitted).

In evaluating a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on closing argument , we consider the argument as a whole, declining to focus “on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, we con sider the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of conte xt or given undue prominence.” State v. Jones , (quotations omitted).

However, “When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument , we consider the argument as a whole, rather than 16 focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).

Kouba argues that the district court plainly erred by allowing Deputy Brault to testify that she “refused to allow the police to enter her home without a warrant.” It is a due-process violation to comment on a “defendant’s failure to consent to a warrantless search.”

(noting that defendant’ s “credibility was seriously undermined by the inconsistent statements he made to police and his admission that he perjured himself in the first trial”).

In examining a closing argument for prosecutorial misconduct, “we consider the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing whether a prosecutor’s argument overstepped these lines, this court considers “the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks.” (quotations omitted); (concluding that after reviewing the prosecutor’s closing argument in light of the entire record, any misconduct viewed in isolation or 11 collectively did not have a significant impact on the jury’s verdict and did no

When reviewing closing arguments for possible prosecutorial misconduct, this court considers “the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotations omitted).

But there is no “ ‘plain’ error when there is no binding precedent.” State v. Jones , 89 (Minn. 2008) (quotation 7 omitted).

In evaluating a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we consider the prosecutor’s closing argument as a whole, declining to focus “on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing whether a prosecutor’ s argument overstepped these lines, we consider the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on “particular phrases or remarks.”

When reviewing closing arguments for possible prosecutorial misconduct, this court considers “the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing closing arguments for possible prosecutorial misconduct, this court considers “the argumen t as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).

803(3), a hearsay statement is admissible if it is a “statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind.” State v. Jones , –97 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitte d).

(declining to find plain error where law was undecided).

(stating that an error cannot be “plain” in the absence of binding precedent).

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

An error is “plain if it is clear or obvious.” State v. Jones , (quotation omitted).

The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a prosecutor ’s decision to bring up a defendant’s refusal to consent to a warrantless search in State v. Jones