Cited by

ed on the record, we cannot determine whether [the witness’s] violation of the trial court’s order was intentional or not; nonetheless, it was misconduct attributable to the prosecutor.”); (noting the state must prepare its witnesses so they “will not blurt out anything that might be inadmissible and prejudicial”); (“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.”).

to encourage the jury to punish [the defendant] for what the prosecutor perceives as further victimization of the victim.” State v. McNeil

“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.”

“[T]he state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony .”

Unintentionally 6 eliciting inadmissible evidence may also be misconduct because the state “has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.”

The state agrees that Officer Wells’s testimony includes inadmissible evidence but asserts that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct because the prosecutor attempted to prepare Officer Wells and did not intentionally elicit inadmissible testimony.1 “The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.”

In the context of prosecutorial misconduct, even “an intentional elicitation of impermissible testimony, although erroneous, will warrant reversal only when it is likely that the impermissible testimony substantially weighed on the jury’s decision.”

This duty includes “prepar[ing] [the state’s] witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.”

Particularly in sexual abuse cases, which “inevitably evoke an emotional reaction” and “where credibility is the central issue,” any attempt “to exacerbate this natural reaction by making any emotive appeal to the jury is likely to be highly prejudicial.” (quotation marks omitted); rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

” (quotation omitted); -32 (Minn. App. 2003).

“[T]he state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony.”

A prosecuting attorney “has a duty to prepare [their] witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” (d 639, 641 (Minn. 1978)).

Ramey, d at 299 (“the proper legal standard for determining prejudice is whether the plain error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”); (holding no prejudice where state had a strong case and prosecutor’s statements about the challenged evidence were brief); -33 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding that evidence of appellant’s abuse included graphic, consistent testimony from victim, such that the prosecutor’s soliciting vouching testimony did not substantially affect the verdict).

[that] the state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony.”

Because Campbell’s pretrial motion to prohibit testimony involving a weapon operates as a timely objection, n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), we review under the harmless-error standard, d 629, 633 (Minn. 2011).

(d 368, 373 (Minn. 1979)).

(noting that “the state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony”).

“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.”

rev. denied (Minn. June 25, 2003).

See State v. McNeil , (noting that “the state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony”).

But that was a relevant consideration because this court is “much more likely to find prejudicial misconduct when the state intentionally elicits impermissible 6 testimony.”

[that] the state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony.”

“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifyi ng, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” State v. 6 McNeil, (citing State v. Carlson , d 639, 641 (Minn. 1978)).

this court concluded that there was "no doubt that it was misconduct" for the prosecutor to ask the mother of an alleged sex-abuse victim whether she believed her daughter's allegations.

See, e.g., State v. McNeil , (finding that prosecutor’s improper statements in closing arguments did not impair defendant’s ri ght to fair trial “giv en the extraordinary weight of the evidence”).

See State v. McNeil , (“A reviewing court is much more likely to find prejudicial misconduct when the state intentionally elicits impermissible testimony.”).

Generally, “arguments that invite the jurors to put th emselves in the shoes of the victim are considered improper.” (stating that it is misconduct for prosecutor to evoke sympathy for the victim).

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6; .

And it is well established that the prosecutor has the “absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissib le testimony.” State v. McNeil

” State v. McNeil , -32 (Minn. App. 2003).

14 “The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” State v. McNeil

If a prosecutor intentionally elicits inadmissible evidence from a state’s witness, a new trial may be appropriate if the inadmissible evidence was prejudicial in the sense that it “played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.” See State v. McDaniel , (quotation omitted) ; see also State v. McNeil , -32 (Minn. App. 2003); cf. State v. Mahkuk , -90 (Minn. 2007) (cautioning that reversal may be appropriate re medy for intentionally eliciting inadmissible evidence even if not preju

“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” State v. McNeil

If a prosecutor intentionally elicits inadmissible evidence from a state’s witness, reversal of a conviction is appropriate if the inadmissible evidence was prejudicial in the sense that it “played [a] substantial part in convincing the jury of the defendant’s guilt.” Id.; -32 (Minn. App. 2003); cf. State v. Mahkuk , -90 (Mi nn.

State v. McNeil , n.1 (Minn. App. 2003).

“The state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” d 228, 232 (Minn. App. 2003).

And the prosecutor “may argue as to the credibility of witnesses but may not throw his own opinion onto the scales of credibility.” , review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003).

State v. McNeil , , 232 (Minn. App. 2003).

See State v. McNeil , (“It is misconduct for a prosecutor to attack a defendant for exercising his right to a fair trial.”).

“Minnesota law is crystal clear on this issue—the state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony.” d 228, 232 (Minn. App. 2003).

Based on this ruling, the prosecuting attorney was required to prepare the state’s witnesses by notifying them of the court’s ruling and instructing them not to refer to Ancke’s drug possession.4 d 228, 232 (Minn. App. 2003) (“Minnesota law is crystal clear” that the prosecutor “has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure that they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony.”).