Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Washington, 521 N.W.2d 35.

96 citing documents.

State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
(noting that the jury instruction is a factor in finding that any error in the prosecutor’s statement is nonprejudicial); (observing that the court assumes that the jury follows a district court’s instruction); (ruling that jury instructions are relevant to the analysis of misconduct).
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Failure to object to comments or to seek a curative instruction “weights] heavily” against reversal, because the district court might have been able to “ameliorate the effect of improper prosecutorial argument.”
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
40 n. 3 (Minn.1994) (quoting 1 ABA Standards, The Prosecution Function 3-5.8(d) (2d ed.1982)).
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
way he wanted to treat this object that everyone else called Megan Fisher * * While character attacks- during closing arguments are improper, parties are permitted- to argue reasonable inferences from the facts presented at trial.
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
(“The weight and credibility to be given disputed evidence are determinations to be made by the jury.”); (“Weighing the credibility of witnesses is the province of the jury.”) In determining whether a lesser-included offense instruction should be given, t
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that jury was not unduly influenced by improper statements in prosecution’s closing argument in • part because the statements were found on only four pages of the 45-page transcript of the closing argument).
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004
Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(“scorpion” fable an improper character reference); (characterization of defendant as “an animal” improper).
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
-45 (Minn.1990); -41 (Minn.1994).
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
in which we held that the prosecutor’s use of a fable during closing arguments was an improper character attack.
State v. Byers 554 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Byers 554 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
“Evidence admitted in violation of the confrontation clause is not harmless unless the evidence is otherwise overwhelming.” (quoting Hansen, d at 105 ).
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Objections provide the trial court an opportunity to prevent or cure the effects of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and enhance a reviewing court's ability to make adequate judgments of whether misconduct has in fact occurred.
State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
-45 (Minn.1990); see also Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(noting that there is less likelihood of error where potentially inappropriate remarks are brief and isolated).
State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The supreme court recently emphasized: Defense counsel’s failure to object to the comments or seek a curative instruction has ‘weighed heavily’ in our previous decisions not to reverse, because the trial court might have been able to “ameliorate the effect of improper prosecutorial argument.”