Cited by

Appellate courts presume that the jury “followed the [district] court’s instructions” and “disregarded any question to which an objection was sustained.”

And, while asking questions that the district court had prohibited does not necessarily equate to serious misconduct, the prosecutor’s attempts here to elicit inadmissible evidence tie in with the prosecutor’s more-serious misconduct during closing argument.

“Whether a new trial should be granted because of prosecutorial misconduct is governed by no fixed rules but rests within the discretion of the trial judge, who is in the best position to appraise its effect.”

Even assuming without deciding that an error occurred, “the jury must be presumed to have followed the court’s instructions and to have disregarded any question to which an objection was sustained.” (“Jurors are presumed to follow instructions.”).

“Even if established, prosecutorial misconduct does not in and of itself require a new trial.”

When a prosecutor intentionally elicits or attempts to elicit inadmissible evidence, a new trial may be ordered if “the misconduct appears to be inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s right to a fair trial is denied.”

(explaining that appellant who made no contemporaneous objection “ failed to preserve the issue for appellate review”).

“[W]e will not overturn a district court’s evidentiary rulings unless appellant shows a clear abuse of discretion and that this abuse resulted in prejudice.”

“[W]e will not overturn a district court’s evidentiary rulings unless appellant shows a clear abuse of discretion and that this abuse resulted in prejudice.”

d 115, 12 1 (Minn. 200 2).

An appellate court “will not overturn a district court’s evidentiary rulings unless [the defendant] shows a clear abuse of discretion and that this abuse resulted in prejudice to [the defendant].”

This court “will not overturn a district court’s evidentiary rulings unless appellant shows a clear abuse of discretion and that this abuse resulted in prejudice to [appellant].”

More details about the murder and Steward’s ˗20 (Minn. 2002).

See State v. 8 Bauer, -72 (Minn. App. 2009), aff’d on other grounds, d 825 (Minn. 2011) (concluding prosecutor’s improper questions were not “unusually serious”); (holding prosecutor elicited excluded testimony and this was “less serious” misconduct).

(citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127, ).

401; (stating that "[uJnder Minnesota Rule of Evidence 401, relevant evidence is anything that tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence").

(stating “the jury must be presumed to have followed the [district] court’s instructions and to have disregarded any question to which an objection was sustained”).