Cited by

-30 (Minn. 2016) (holding that a nonpublic proceeding “on an issue of evidentiary boundaries, similar to what would ordinarily and regularly be discussed i n chambers or at a sidebar conference,” did not implicate the defendant’s right to a public trial).

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

which did not address the circumstance presented by this case : namely, whether a person convicted of a crime may petition for postconviction relief when the ineffective assistance of counsel caused a procedural defect in perfecting a challenge to a restitution order.

State v. Smith , -35 (Minn. 2016).

Due process affords every defendant “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotations omitted).

A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misc onduct when the prosecutor “violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” State v. Smith , -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

t that that the district court’s closure of the courtroom during individualized voir dire of prospective jurors was not a true closure because it was for a “narrow purpose” during a “small portion of the trial proceedings.” “Not all courtroom restrictions implicate a defendant’s right to a public trial.” Taylor, d at 11 (alteration and quotation omitted); see also State v. Smith , -30 (Minn. 2016) .

During closing argument, prosecutors may “argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“A prosecutor engages in prosecutor ial misconduct when the prosecutor violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

*302 State v. Smith , , 322 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Dobbins v. State , , 731 (Minn. 2010) ).

ing the credibility of H.D.’s prior statement to Sergeant Barney and (2) “using portions of her prior statement as substantive evidence of [appellant’s] guilt.” “A prosecutor engages in prosecu torial misconduct when the pros ecutor violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, o rders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

D E C I S I O N I. Prosecutorial Misconduct Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when “the prosecutor’s acts have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial.” (quotation omitted).

“If a district court’s evidentiary ruling is determined to be erroneous, and the error reaches the level of a constitutional error, such as denying the defendant the right to present a defense, our standard of review is whether the exc lusion of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ( (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Smith , , 335 (Minn. 2016) (noting prosecutors may not "intentionally ...

“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when [the prosecutor] violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” –35 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial mi sconduct when the prosecutor violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

During closing argument, prosecutors ma y “argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record.” State v. Smith , (quotation omitted).

It is unprofessional misconduct, however, for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” ( quotation omitted).

A prosecutor commits prosecutorial misconduct when she “violates clear or established standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case law.” -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” d 310, 335 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

State v. Smith , , 336 (Minn. 2016).

.” -35 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitte d).

Due process requires that every defendant be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” See State v. Smith , (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This court generally does not decide issues that were not determined in the district court, State v. Smith , , and we will not do so here .

(noting that prosecutorial misconduct occurs when “the prosecutor’s acts ‘have the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial’ ” ()).

We have recognized that due process requires that every defendant be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quotations omitted).

But if the district court’s evidentiary ruling prevents a defendant from presenting a defense, we review the decision to determine if the “exclusion of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

(“[t]he existence of probable cause is further confirmed by the trial jury’s guilty verdicts.”).

See, -27 (Minn. 2016) (rejecting Smith’s claims of error in the grand jury proceedings and noting that the burden is heavier when a defendant challenges a grand jury indictment after having been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt).

misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quotations omitted).