Cited by

5 (Minn. 2021) (concluding that the defendant’s substantial rights were not affected in part because the challenged statements constituted a minimal portion of the transcript); (concluding that there was no reasonable likelihood that the potentially improper evidence significantly affected the verdict in part because the prosecutor did not mention the challenged evidence in closing).

This list, however, is not exhaustive and “it does not necessarily follow that each must be satisfied.”

But it may not “speculate without a factual basis.” Id.

And “[a] prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence.” (“It is unprofessional conduct for the 10 prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quotation omitted)).

“We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” 3

A lawyer for the state “may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence in its closing argument.” (quotation omitted) (first alteration in original).

A prosecutor “may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences 12 that can be drawn from that evidence in its closing argument,” d 569, 587 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted), but engages in misconduct by misstating the law, misstating the facts, or misleading the jury about the inferences it may draw from the facts

To determine whether the State has satisfied its burden, we consider, among other things: “(1) the strength of the evidence against [the defendant]; (2) the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct; and (3) whether [the defendant] had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.”6 –06 (Minn. 2016).

Thus, “the State must show that there is ‘no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict.’ ” d 792, 803–04 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Ramey, d at 302).

“[A]n appellant who alleges an error in the admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A district court must instruct a jury in a manner that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case.”

State v. Peltier , -05 (Minn. 2016) (concluding that statements by a prosecutor that had “no basis in the record” were improper).

-05 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions, including the specific language of those instructions.”

When determining if erroneously admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict, we may consider “(1) the manner in which the [s]tate presented the testimony; (2) whether the testimony was highly persuasive; (3) whether the [s]tate used the testimony in closing argument, and (4) whether the defense effectively countered the testimony.” (citation omitted).

In evaluating whether prosecutorial misconduct affected a defendant’s substantial rights, we consider several factors, including: “(1) the strength of the evidence against [the defendant]; (2) the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct; and (3) whether [the defendant] had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” -06 (Min n. 2016).

An evidentiary error is harmless if the wrongly admitted evidence did not “significantly affect[] the verdict.”

Reasonable inference of victim blaming or shaming “[T]he [s]tate may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence in its closing argument.” (quotation omitted) (first alteration in original).

d 792, 802 (Minn. 2016) (“Under the harmless-error standard, an appellant who alleges an error in the admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted)).

“[A]n appellant who alleges an error in the admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions, including the specific language of those instructions.”

“[A]n appellant who alleges an error in the admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”