Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720.

221 citing documents.

State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct will only be granted if “the misconduct, considered in the context of the trial as a whole, was so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial was impaired.” -28 (Minn.2000).
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
If the claim of misconduct arises out of the closing argument, this court considers the closing argument as a whole; it does not focus on particular “phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
14 “This court reviews claims of prosecutorial misconduct and will reverse only if the misconduct, when considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (-28 (Minn.2000)).
State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
CRIMJIG 11.26 (noting that “intent * * * is not always susceptible to proof by direct evidence, but may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the event”).
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-28 (Minn.2000) (citations omitted).
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-28 (Minn.2000) (citations omitted).
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001