Cited by

But this rule “is not designed to prevent the prosecutor from arguing that particular witnesses were or were not credible.” (quotation omitted); , 123 (Minn. 2009) (“While a prosecutor must not personally endorse a witness’s credibility, the State may, in closing argument, argue that a witness was or was not credible.”).

–23 (Minn. 2009) (concluding the prosecutor gave “a legitimate explanation of the State’s burden”).

d 739, 750 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted); , 122 (Minn. 2009)

Under the modified plain-error analysis, “[t]he defendant must prove an error was made that was plain.”

And an error affects substantial rights “only if there is a reasonable probability that the error actually impacted the verdict.”

(stating that the prosecuting attorney’s improper statement in closing argument was “brief” and determining that “any potential [prosecutorial] misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

In particular, “[w]hen an objection is made and [the appellate court] conclude[s] the prosecutor committed misconduct, [the appellate court] appl[ies] a two-tiered harmless-error analysis.”

In addition, “the State may, in closing argument, argue that a witness was or was not credible.”

-49 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting an affirmative defense was not misconduct); -25 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that responding to a suggestion that witnesses could not be trusted was not misconduct) .

(holding state’s discovery violation was harmless when defendant had opportunity to cross-examine witness about undisclosed evidence).

16 “While a prosecutor must not personally endorse a witness’s credibility, the State may, in closing argument, argue that a witness was or was not credible.” State v. Jackson

“A prosecutor’ s misstatement of the burden of proof is highly improper and constitutes misconduct.” (quotation omitted).

(recognizing that this factor favors joinder when “potential trauma” is “significant”).

State v. Jackson , (citation omitted).

B. Vouching for M.B.’s credibility The state may argue for or against a witness’s credibility but cannot “personally endorse a witness’s credibility[.]” State v. Jackson

“Defendants have antagonistic defenses when the defenses are inconsis tent and when they seek to put the blame on each other and the jury is forced to choose between the defense theories advocated by the defendants.” (quotation omitted).

But a prosecutor “has the right to fairly meet the arguments of the defendant.” State v. Jackson

7 (holding that there was no misconduct when a prosecutor argued that defendant offered evidence to smear a witness’s character in the jury’s eyes); (holding that there was no error when a prosecutor argued that the defendant took “every

It is improper for the state to “express[] a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.”

-45 (Minn. 2012) (noting the probative value of evidence introduced to anticipate challenges to witness credibility); (noting the probative value of the evidence); (notin g the context of the evidence and the overall weight of evidence against the defendant); 5 (Minn. 2009) (noting the scope of the state’s questions); (noti ng witness credibility); McArthur, d at 52 (noting the broader context of evidence, the district court’s reasoning, and the acceptable responses to cross-examination).

“Prosecutors improperly shift the burden of proof when they imply that a defendant has the burden of proving his innocence.”

“Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when the [prosecutor] implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness.” (quotation omitted).

Additionally, the “prosecutor has the right to fairly meet the arguments of the defendant.”

(reviewing the grant of a joinder motion for an abuse of discretion where the d efendant objected); (same).

(holding state’s discovery violation was harmless when defendant had opportunity to cross-examine witness about undisclosed evidence).

“The loss of a peremptory challenge does not automatically deprive a defendant of a fair trial or require the reversal of his conviction.”

During closing argument, a prosecutor may not “personally endorse a witness’s credibility,” but the prosecutor may “argue that a witness was or was not credible.” (citation omitted).

-26 (Minn. 2009) (explaining that it was unnecessary to address the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a new trial on alternative felonies because he was not convicted of any of those crimes).

Objected-to statement When an objection is made at trial, we first determine whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and, if so, we apply a “two-tiered harmless-error analysis.”