Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smith, 825 N.W.2d 131.

98 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A prosecutor’s statements in closing argument become improper vouch ing 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.” d 131, 139 (Minn. App. 2012) ( quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Specific intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, State v. Johnson , “by drawing inferences from the defe ndant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Smith , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-36 (Minn. App. 2012) (concluding that conduct was sufficient to constitute a terroristic threat where individual waved a knife at his cousin and demanded money because the conduct constituted a threat of a future assault if the cousin did not comply with the demand for money), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.’” (), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Mahkuk , (concluding that whether the stat e’s witness’s “violation of the trial court’s order” prohibiting the witness from testifying about a gang’s possession of firearms “was interchangeably); State v. Simion , (same); (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Similarly, in State v. Smith , this court concluded that a distri ct court did not commit plain error by admitting 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 hear say exceptions.” -39 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 The question of “[w]hether 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.” (concluding that the defendant’s threat to assault the victim with a knife if he did not comply with the demand for money constituted a threat under the terroristic-threats statute) (), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
and implicitly threatened to kidnap or cause other harm to the program chairperson”); (affirming conviction when defendant’s “conduct constituted a threat to assault [one person] with [a] knife”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Engel must demonstrate: “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected [her] substantial rights.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 131, 139 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Barenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Barenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
r, he told her that “he was going to kill [her].” Bakken argues that this statement was not a threat, but only an expression of “transitory anger” and “fleeting frustration.” We have stated that “[t]he terroristic-threats statute is not intended to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger which lacks the intent to terrorize.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
9 Caselaw establishes that “[t]he terroristic-threats statute is not intended to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger which lacks the intent to terrorize.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the context of this statute, “purpose” means “aim, objective, or intention.” 8 (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
You should believe [A.B.].” “[I]t is not misconduct for the state to analyze the evidence and argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.” – 19 (Minn. 2006); (holding that a prosecutor’s statements that a particular witness was “very sincere” and “very frank in his testimony” were arguments regarding the witness’s credibility and not improper vouching), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see, (holding that the prosecutor’s brief comments that a witness was “very sincere” and “very frank in his testimony” were arguments regarding credibility and therefore were not improper vouching), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The terroristic- threats statute is not intended to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger, which lacks the intent to terrorize.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (calling a witness “a believable person” and “frank and sincere” was not improper vouching); (holding that prosecutor’s comments that a witness was “very sincere” and “very frank in his testimony” were not improper vouching because the statements were arguments regarding credibility), review denied (Minn. Mar.