Cited by

See, (holding inadmissible officer’s written summary of interview with witness because, although witness “was asked whether he recalled” it, witness had no “opportunity to admit, deny, or explain specific statements” in summary); Webster, d at 787 (providing that error is plain if it “contrave

“Reversal is warranted only when the ruling result[s] in prejudice.”

“When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

The witness “must also be given the opportunity to admit, deny, or explain the inconsistency in order for the statement to be admissible to impeach the witness.” (quotation omitted).

does not permit a defendant to compel a prospective witness to waive her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” (citing Moose, d at 525).

“If [an appellate court] conclude[s] that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, [the appellate court] will grant a new trial when the misconduct impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

If an evidentiary ruling “results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.” (quotation omitted).

ds that the prosecutor “signaled to the jury that it could disregard anything about [appellant’s] testimony that did not immediately make sense to them.” 6 “When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

6 “When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

“When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, [appellate courts] look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

“When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

d 340, 356 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).

remains to be decided .” n.2 (Minn. 2008); d 297, 304 n.2 (Minn. 2016) ( listing cases questioning whether the two -tiered standard “remains viable”); State v. Graham , (noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court has “yet to decide whether the two-tiered approach for objected- to prosecutorial misconduct as set forth in State v. Caron remains viable”).

When a district court’s evidentiary ruling results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the 5 defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense, the verdict must be reversed if “there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.” (quotation omitted).

remains to be decided ,” n.2 (Minn. 2008) ; n.2 (Minn. 2016) (noting that many “cases ha ve questioned whether the two- tiered Caron standard for reviewing objected-to misconduct remains viable,” and listing cases); (noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court has “yet to decide whether the two -tiered approach for objected -to prosecutorial misconduct as set forth in State v. Caron remains viable”).

remains to be decided.” n.2 (Minn. 2008); n.2 (Minn. 2016) (noting that “[r]ecent cases have questioned whether the two-tiered Caron standard for reviewing objected-to misconduct remains viable,” and listing cases); (noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court has “yet to decide whether the two-tiered approach for objected-to prosecutorial misconduct as set forth in State v. Caron remains viable”).

A district court does not abuse its discretion by excluding impeachment evidence if its exclusion is harmless error, meaning that there is no “reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.” State v. Graham , (quotation omitted).

The witness “must also be given the opportunity to ‘admit, deny, or explain the inconsistency in order for the statement to be admissible to impeach the witness.’” (quoting State v. Martin , ); see also Carroll v. Pratt , 5 (holding that “it is usually necessary to lay a proper foundation first on the cross-examination of the witness to be impeached by asking him [or her] whether he [or she]

While the prosecutor is given considerable latitude in closing arguments and need not make a colorless argument, the state may not “belittle the defense, either in abstract or by suggesting the defendan t raised the defense because it was the only defense that may be successful.” (quotation omitted).

buse of discretion, State v. Anderson , where the district court’s evidentiary ruling results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if “there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been differe nt if the evidence had been admitted.” (quotation omitted).

The prosecutor is an officer of the court who must balance advocacy for the state’s position with an “obligation to achieve justice and fair adjudication .” ; see also State v. Graham , (stating that “a prosecutor must be more than just an advocate for” the state).

Accordingly, “when the ruling results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.’” ().

When evaluating a prosecutor’s closing remarks, this court examines “the closing argument as a whole, rather than selected 5 phrases and remarks.” State v. Graham , (quotation omitted).

“The [s]tate has a right to vigorously argue its case and it can argue that the evidence does not support particular defenses.” State v. Graham , (quotation omitted).

When the district court’s evidentia ry ruling “results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if “there is a reasonable possibility that th e verdict might have be en different if the ‘evidence had been admitted.’” State v. Graham , (quoting State v. Post , ).

When assessing prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, we “look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a closing argume nt for prosecutorial misconduct, this court “look[s] to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” State v. Graham , (quotation omitted).

In reviewing allegations of prosecutorial miscond uct during a closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, we look to “the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.” (quotation omitted).

We assess alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument by “look[ing] to the 7 closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”

3 D E C I S I O N I. “[Appellate courts] review a district court’ s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”