Cited by

He did that to [the cousin].” “A prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

It is improper for a prosecutor to “distract the jury from its proper role of deciding whether the state has met its burden” by urging the jury “to protect society with its verdict.” (), rev. denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).

A prosecuting attorney must not “distract the jury from its proper role of deciding whether the state has met its burden.”

The state’s rebuttal argument thus did not improperly “distract the jury from its proper role of deciding whether the state has met i ts burden.”

-98 (Minn. App. 2005) (holding prosecutor did not improperly disparage defense counsel by arguing that defense presented evidence meant to “hid[e] the ball,” and urging jury not to be distracted); (holding it was not improper for prosecutor to direct jury to “keep its eyes on the prize” of truth and look at the evidence).

(recognizing that the fact-finder “is in the best position to evaluate the cr edibility of witnesses and the weight given to the testimony of those witnesses”).3 3 In its brief to this court, TCCS also lists a number of instances in which the district

A prosecutor “is free to argue that there is no merit to a particular defense or argument.”

“While the prosecutor is free to argue that there is no merit to a particular defense or argument, and prosecutors are free to anticipate arguments defense counsel will make, the prosecutor may not generally belittle a particular defense in the abstract.”

But, “[a] prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence produced at trial,” and “is free to make legitimate arguments on the basis of all proper inferences from the evidence introduced,” d 349, 358 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

But “[a] prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence produced at trial.”

d 21, 25 (Minn. App. 1997).

but” and then ending it with, “Never in the history of the planet Earth” is sort of like beginning a debate line with “with all due respect” and then ending it with “moronic and perverted.” But the main problem is that the argument offends the rule that “the prosecutor may not generally belittle a particular defense in the abstract.”

enigrated the de *844 fense” during his closing argument when he commented that Simion took “every opportunity to dirty up President Lines by accusing and insinuating that they were violating some rule or regulation.” A prosecutor is allowed “to argue that there is no merit to a particular defense or argument,” but “may not generally belittle a particular defense in the abstract.”

(noting that a “prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence produced at trial”).

We have consistently held that a “ ‘prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.’ ” ().

Such misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “[i]f the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error.”

Search for the truth in the evidence, but give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.” Bailey argues that a jury’s real role requires “ ‘searching for doubt’ in all the evidence.” (“The prosecutor did tell the jury to ‘keep its eyes on the prize’ of truth * * *.”), (noting that the prosecutor told the jury that it “would be an ‘unspeakable injustice’ to consider the lesser-included offenses and to acquit on the charge of first