Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ives, 568 N.W.2d 710.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Additionally, improper attacks on a defendant’s character can constitute prosecutorial misconduct, such as a description of a defendant as a “‘would-be-punk[]’ with a ‘pathetic little li[fe].’” 715 (Minn. 1997).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-14 (Minn. 1997); -91 (Minn. 2008) (explaining that a prosecutor may not make “gratuitous” or “unfair” character attacks on a defendant).
- State of Minnesota v. Mickela Joy Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Mickela Joy Vredenburg
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
they are not required to make a colorless argument.” n.1 (Minn. 1997).
- State of Minnesota v. Reginald Scott Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Scott Hubbard
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
1 Appellant counters that the state cannot prove that the prosecutor’s misconduct did not affect his substantial rights because the evidence against him was “far from 1 The state, also argues that defense counsel’s failure to object to the closing argument indicates that the state’s conduct was not prejudicial.
- State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
- State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the improper statements occurred during rebuttal, Gregor ’s attorneys “could not respond to those improper remarks.” The state argues that, even if we conclude that the prosecuting attorney’s rebuttal was misconduct, “there was no objection from either of her very experienced criminal defense attorneys.” The lack of objection “implies that the comments were not prejudicial.”
- State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Closing argument aimed at inflaming the passions of the jury Prosecutors have “considerable latitude” during closing arguments and are “not required to make a colorless argument.” n.1 (Minn. 1997).
- State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
State v. Johnson
672 N.W.2d 235
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(failure to object implies that comments were not prejudicial).
- Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003
-
Ives v. State
655 N.W.2d 633
Minn. 2003
(The facts are more fully detailed in Ives’ direct appeal to this court, ).
- State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
State v. Marchbanks
632 N.W.2d 725
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating that the failure to object or seek a curative instruction “weighs heavily” against reversal and it implies that the prosecutor’s comments were not prejudicial).
- State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
- State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
- State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
- State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
- State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
-
State v. Buggs
581 N.W.2d 329
Minn. 1998
-15 (Minn.1997) (it was misconduct for the prosecutor to argue the defendant was a “would-be punk[ ]” with a “pathetic little li[fe]”, but the comments were not so prejudicial as to require a new trial because the comments were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).