Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jackson, 773 N.W.2d 111.
-
State of Minnesota v. Andrea Deshawn Wilkes
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.”
- State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Prosecutors improperly shift the burden of proof when they imply that a defendant has the burden of proving his innocence.”
- State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.”
- State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
While the prosecutor has latitude to respond to the defendant’s arguments, he may not make comments that inflame the passions of jurors or make “predictions of the consequences of the jury’s verdict.”
- State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(rejecting without discussion appellant’s claim that prosecutor knowingly and intentionally presented false evidence and witness testimony, when appellant “fail[ed] to present any evidence or specify legal authority to support his position”).
- State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Objected-to misconduct When an objection is made at trial, we first determine whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and then apply a “two-tiered harmless-error analysis.”
- State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
State v. Johnson
811 N.W.2d 136
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The joinder rule “neither favors nor disfavors joinder.”
- State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
-
State v. Gatson
801 N.W.2d 134
Minn. 2011
(concluding that the prosecutor’s questioning of witnesses was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the limited questions, curative instructions, and overwhelming evidence in support of the defendant’s guilt).
- State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
-
State v. Vue
797 N.W.2d 5
Minn. 2011
ements in closing argument as evidence because such statements do not “[come] from the witness stand.” The prosecutor’s statements did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor did not allude to the defendant’s failure to testify, see DeRosier, d at 107 , and because the prosecutor has the right to respond to the arguments made by the defendant
- State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
- State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
- State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010