Cited by

See Wintz, d at 480 (declining to address inadequately briefed issue); (stating that issues not addressed in an appellate brief are considered waived and will not be reviewed); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (stating issue unsupported by argument or authority in appellant’s brief is “waived and will not be considered

He not only forfeited this argument, but agreed at oral argument that there was no intentional provocation here.

Although a prosecutor may not express her personal opinion on the credibility of a witness, she may analyze the evidence and argue that “particular witnesses were or were not credible,” –1 9 (Minn. 2006).

I just don’t think I can do that, and I’m not going to.” -79 (Minn. 2003).

8 a whole”— which together spanned approximately 24 transcript pages —calling Skylark’s testimony “underhanded” once “does not amount to misconduct.” (holding that, even though prosecutor “seem[ed] to .

d 667, 679 (Minn. 2003) (concluding an improper two-sentence statement within a 20-page closing argument was not misconduct).

(holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages”); (“[T]he [challenged] statements were short comments, involving 13

In deciding the impact of the challenged conduct, this court considers “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” (hold ing that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages .”); State v. Glaze , (holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct in clos

(holding that defendants had antagonistic defenses when they sought to shift the blame) , 21 (holding that defenses were not antagonistic when defense counsel’s questions sought to clarify the roles of the parties).

(holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages”).

In deciding what effect challenged evidence or conduct had on the verdict, this court considers “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether i t was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” Townsend v. State , (holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages”); State v. Glaze , (holding th

In deciding what effect challenged evidence or conduct had on the verdict, this court considers “the manner in which the evid ence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing ar gument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” Townsend v. State , (holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statem ent was only two sent ences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages”); (holding that alleged pro

(concluding that comments by the prosecutor that seemed to disparage the defense and expressed an opinion on the credibility of the defendant were not misconduct because they were a small portion of the argument).

-47 (Minn. 2018); State v. Washington

See State v. Powers , -79 (Minn. 2003) (ending analysis of one claim of misconduct upon d etermining that the statement did not amount to misconduct).

When reviewing joinder decisions, we also inquire into “any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.” (quotation omitted).

g there was no effect on the defendant’s substantial rights when the “incidents of alleged misconduct were isolated, together comprising approximately one page of a 39-page closing argument”); (holding prosecutor’s misconduc t did not affect defendant’s sub stantial rights where misconduct covered one of 64 pages of testimony); 7 (Minn. 2003) (concluding two improper sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages did not deprive the defendant of a fa ir trial).

Generally, if a defendant fails to object to misconduct at trial, he “forfeits the right to have the issue considered on appeal.”

An error is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error.” (quotation omitted).

In reviewing joinder decisions, an appellate court makes “an independent inquiry into any substantial prej udice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.” (quotation omitted).

In reviewing joinder decisions, an appellate court makes “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.” (quotation omitted).

See, e.g. , State v. Powers , , 679 (Minn. 2003) (holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because "[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages"); State v. Glaze , , 662 (Minn. 1990) (holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments d

We will reverse a conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct “only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”

When evaluating alleged misconduct, “the closing argument will be considered as a whole.”

We will reverse a conviction “only if the [prosecutorial] misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired [appellant’s] right to a fair trial.” State v. Powers

(holding that serious misconduct is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error,” while less serious misconduct is error only if it “likely played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict”).

3 In reviewing joinder decisions, the appellate court makes “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined f or trial.” State v. Powers , (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Crim.

Ultimately, we will reverse a conviction “only if the [prosecutorial] miscond uct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired [appellant’s] right to a fair trial.”

“If the defendant failed to object to the misconduct at trial, he forfeits the right to have the issue considered on appeal, but if the error is sufficient, this court may review.”

We will reverse a conviction on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct only if the misconduct, “when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”

See State v. Powers , (stating that issues not briefed are forfeited).

For serious misconduct, “the misconduct is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error,” whereas less serious misconduct is harmless unless “the misconduct likely played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.” (quotation omitted).

Ultimately, we will reverse a conviction “only if the misconduct, when consider ed in light of the whole trial, impaired the [appellant’s] right to a fair trial.”