Cited by

“Sexual -abuse cases inevitably evoke an emotional reaction, and any attempt by the prosecutor to exacerbate this natural reaction by making any emotive appeal to the jury is likely to be highly prejudicial.” State v. McNeil , (quotation omitted).

“Prosecutors have a dut y not to win a case by any means necessary but to see that justice is done ,” and “[j]ustice is done only when the accused, regardless of guilt or innocence, receives a fair trial.” 1 “In postconviction proceedings, the defendant has the burden of establishing .

the state has an absolute duty to prepare its witnesses to ensure th at they are aware of the limits of permissible testimony.” State v. McNeil , (emphasis added).

d 919, 926 (Minn. 2002) (presuming that jurors follow curative instructions); (considering whether impermissible testimony substantially affected the jury’s decision).

“When reviewing alleged [prosecutorial] misconduct in closing statements, this court must look at the whole argument in context, not just selective phrases or remarks.” (citing State v. Walsh , ).

B. Impact on the Children Grazzini-Rucki argues that the state’s discussion of the impact of Grazzini-Rucki’s actions on her children improperly urged jurors to “put themselves in the shoes of the victim,” or evoked juror sympathy by commenting on issues unrelated to the evidence, - 35 (Minn. App. 2003).

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

( (citing State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 155 -56, )).

See, (holding that prosecutorial misconduct did not deny a defendant a fair trial because it was outweighed by the victim’s testimony).

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

Moreover, “[t]he state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” d 228, 232 (Minn. App. 2003) (), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003); see also State v. Hogetvedt , (“The state has a duty to ensure that its witnesses know the limits of permissible testimony.”), review denied (Minn. May 29

See State v. McNeil , d 228, 236 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding that prosecutorial miscond uct was outweighed by victim’s testimony).

Appellate courts are “much more likely to find prejudicial misconduct when the state intentionally elicits impermissible testimony.”

(holding that prosecutorial misconduct did not deny a defendant his right to a fair trial because it was outweighed by the victim’s testimony).

But “[i]t is misconduct for a prosecutor to attack a defendant for exercising his right to a fair trial and to encourage the jury to punish him for what the prosecutor perceives as further victimization of the victim.”

“A prosecutor may argue as to the credibility of witnesses but may not throw [her] own opinion onto the scales of credibility.”

what precipitated her suicide attempt, and she answered that she “hear[d] so many negative words that I started to believe them and just thought that I wasn’t worth it or that I really was a bad mother.” The state is required “to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.”

“A reviewing court is much more likely to find prejudicial misconduct when the state intentionally elicits impermissible testimony.”

The prosecutor also has a duty to prepare the state’s witnesses “to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” 3

B. Statement that A.L. relived her nightmare To argue that the prosecutor’s statement that A.L. relived her nightmare during cross-examination was misconduct, (concluding that prosecutor committed misconduct, but did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, by stating that defendant victimized the victim again 6 by requiring her to testify).

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

For his argument, -35 (Minn.App.2003), which concerned the sexual abuse of a child.

-36 (Minn.App.2003) (stating that the prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant).