Cited by

1 (2010); (stating that “it is settled law that when we engage in appellate review for the sufficiency of the evidence, it may be sufficient to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant”).

When reviewing a prosecutor’s “closing argument, we review the closing argument as a whole.” ; (noting that courts look at the state’s “closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

(concluding that prosecutorial misconduct was not prejudicial and noting that “the prosecutor’s statement was not pervasive” where it “cover[ed] three lines of a 15-page closing argument); Davis, d at 682 (determining the prosecuting attorney’s misconduct did not affect the defendant’s s

for which the jury was instructed.” Only the district court instructs the jury “on the law necessary to render a verdict.” d 710, 716 (Minn. 2010).

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing arguments, we “review the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s closing argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

“[A] conviction may be based on a single person’s testimony.”

In determining whether the state has satisfied that burden, an appellate court should consider “the strength of evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing arguments, we “review the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s closing argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

“[A] conviction may be based on a single person’ s testimony.”

Minn. R. App. P. 110.01; n.2 (Minn. 2000).

(reasoning that this factor weighed in favor of a conclusion that prosecutorial error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights in part because appellant rebutted the state’s claims in closing argument).

Generally, a conviction can be sustained by “the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (explaining that “a conviction may be based on a single person’s testimony”).

Wilson acknowledges “[i]t is well-settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” see also State v. Cao

See, (criminal sexual conduct occurred when victim was sleeping in her friend’s bedroom at a party); , rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

sympathy for [A.R.]” or the question of who it “believe[s] more” to “substitute for evidence.”3 (concluding the third factor of substantial- rights analysis weighed against defendant when his counsel addressed prosecutor’s alleged misstatements during closing argument).

ressed as the prosecutor’s personal opinion.” In the reply brief filed with this court, Moore contends that there is no other reasonable way to interpret the prosecuting attorney’s statements in closing and that those statements are “plainly misconduct.” An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” like when the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

State v. Cao , Minn. R. Crim.

But cf. State v. Cao , n.2 (Minn. 2010) (granting motion to strike where the defendant cited an article from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).

An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” meaning the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Cao

In evaluating whether the state has met its burden, this court considers “the strength of evidence against the defe ndant, the pervasiveness of improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” as where the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” as where the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

State v. Cao , (describing plain error).

In evaluating the effect on substantial rights, this court c onsiders “the strength of evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of improper su ggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to ) rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Cao

An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” as where the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” as where the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” as where the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

An error is “prejudicial” if there is a “reasonable likelihoo d that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”

1 (2006 ); d 710, 716-17 (Minn. 2010).

“[I]t is solely the responsibility of the court to instruct juries on the law nece ssary to render a verdict.”

12 “[I]t is solely the responsibility of the court to instruct juries on the law necessary to render a verdict.” State v. Cao

(stating when determining whether an error affected a defendant ’s substantial rights the court may consider the strength of the evidence).

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing 9 arguments, this court “review[s] the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

(“a conviction may be based on a single person’s testimony”).

And “a 13 conviction may be based on a single person’s testimony.”

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing arguments, this court “review[s] the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

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

Finally, we determine “whether to address the error to ensure fairness and integrity in judicial proceedings.”