Cited by

6 A prosecutor “may not express a personal opinion regarding witness credibility.” State v. Smith

“[I]ntent is a state of mind that is usually proved with circumstantial evidence.” (“Intent is a state of mind that is generally proved by using circumstantial evidence by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted)); (“A state of mind

(concluding admission of statements did not constitute plain error because “the state was not given the opportunity to establish that some or all of the statements were admissible under one of the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule”); -39 (Minn. App. 2012) (following Manthey and concluding that, when defendant did not object, district court did not commit plain error by admitting hearsay statements), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

“ A threat may be communicated by 6 actions or words.” ( ).

“Intent is a state of mind that is generally proved using circumstantial evidence by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

- 37 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted).

by drawing inferences” from the evidence such as the victim’s reaction, the type of crime, the events surrounding the crime, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the defendant’s words and actions, and “the idea that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions.”); -37 (Minn. App. 2012) (victim’s reaction is circumstantial evidence showing intent); (“A state of mind generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before

“A prosecutor may not express a personal opinion regarding witness credibility, but it is not 9 improper for a prosecutor to analyze the evidence and argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(holding harassment statute requires “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the part of the harasser” (emphasis added)); -37 (Minn. App. 2012) (noting victim’s reaction is circumstantial evidence showing intent), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

A threat “may be communicated by actions or words,” State v. Smith, 11 is made with “an intention to injure another or his property,” and has a “reasonable tendency to create apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor.” (quotation omitted).

6 Opatz also suggests that his conviction exceeds the appropriate application of the threats-of-violence statute, which is not meant to criminalize “the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger which lacks the intent to terrorize.” (quotation omitted).

e type of crime, the events surrounding the crime, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the defendant’s words and actions, and “the idea that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions.” ); -37 (Minn. App. 2012) (victim’s reacti on is circumstantial evidence showing intent), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

In this context, “purpose” means “ aim, objective, or intention,” and “terrorize” means “cause extreme fear by use of violence or threats.” State v. Smith , () , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Intent to terrorize is generally proved using circumstantial evidence “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances,” and from a “victim’s reaction to a threat.” d 131, 136 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

In State v. Smith, we held that a prosecutor did not impermissibly vouch for a witness’s credibility when they stated the witness was “very sincere” and “very frank.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(reviewing unobjected-to admission of a police officer’s testimony about a victim’s prior out-of-court statement for plain error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights); (explaining that plain error affects a defendant’s substantial

or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.’” d 131, 139 (Minn. App. 2012) (), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

at 504-05 (expressing reluctance to conclude that the admission of hearsay evidence is plain error); -39 (Minn. App. 2012) (concluding that a district court did not commit plain error by admitting potential hearsay testimony “because [the defendant’s] counsel failed to object at trial and, as a result, the prosecutor did not have the opportunity to argue for the admissibility of the statements under several

Under the second element of the threats-of-violence statute, “purpose” means “aim, objective, or intention” and “te rrorize” means “to cause extreme fear by use of violence or threats.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

A prosecuting attorney’s argument about witness credibility becomes misconduct when the attorney vouches for a witness by an argument that “implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted).

d 131, 139 (Minn. App. 2012) , review denied (Minn. Mar.

A prosecutor vouches for or against the cr edibility of a witness by “express[ing] a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” State v. Smith , (quotation omitted).

review denied (Minn. Mar.

A defendant’s “[i]ntent is a state of mind that is generally proved using circumstantial evidence by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.

See, review denied (Minn. Mar.

“Intent is a state of mind that is generally proved using circumstantial evidence by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” d 131, 136 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.

“A prosecutor’s statements in closing argument become improper vouching when the prosecutor implie s a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, 11 refers to facts outside the record, or e xpresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.

” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.

State v. Al–Naseer, -74 (Minn. 2010); (applying circumstantial-evidence test to sufficiency challenge on a terroristic -threats conviction), review denied (Minn. Mar.

“Whether a defendant’s conduct is prohibited by the statute he is charged under is an issue of statutory interpretation that this court reviews de novo.” review denied (Minn. Mar.

Vouching occurs when “the prosecutor implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.”

“Whether a defend ant’s conduct is prohibited by the statute he is charged under is an issue of statutory interpretation that this court reviews de novo.” State v. Smith , , review denied (Minn. Mar.

The failure to object to the district court deprives the state of the opportunity to establish that the evidence is admissible under one of the numerous hearsay exceptions, and consequently, an appellate 7 court will not find plain error if the statements are not “clea rly or obviously inadmissible hearsay.” Id.; State v. Smith , review denied (Minn. Mar.

(discussing hearsay rule), review denied (Minn. Mar.

review denied (Minn. Mar.

[that] would have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that its originato r will act according to its 9 tenor.” (quotation omitted)); (“A threat is a declaration of an intention to injure another or hi s property by some unlawful act.” (quotation omitted)).

There are num erous exceptions to the hearsay rule in Minnesota, therefore the law requires objection to potential hearsay at trial in order to create “a record of the district court’s decision-making process in either admit ting or excluding a given statement.” See State v. Smith , (Mi nn.

State v. Smith , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.