Cited by

suckers” if they believed testimony that supported the defense); State v. Griese , -28 (Minn. 1997) (collecting cases where Minnesota appellate courts have concluded prosecutorial misconduct occurs when prosecutors suggest that a defense is offered “when nothing else will work” (quotation omitted)).

Bauer contends that the prosecuting attorney “belittled” his defense by calling it a “distraction,” “magic bullet,” “stories,” and “unicorn.” A prosecuting attorney may argue that a defense lacks merit but cannot “belittle the defense.” d 419, 428 (Minn 1997) (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has stated that, when reviewing prosecutorial misconduct, it is relevant to consider whether “there was scant evidence supporting the defense theory.”

Although we recognize that “[d]irect evidence of intent is rare,” this case presents such a rare instance.

29 (concluding that prosecutorial misconduct that “was limited to a little more than two pages in a more than 50–page closing argument” did not permeate the entire closing argument).

2 While the state may, in rare circumstances, establish a defendant’s intent through direct evidence, the element of intent is generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a person’s words or actions in light of the surrounding circumstances.

d 419, 425 (Minn. 1997).

d 419, 428 (Minn. 1997) (holding that misconduct did not deny fair trial to defendant when “the evidence of guilt [was] overwhelming” and “there was scant evidence supporting the defense theory”).

The supreme court “has repeatedly warned prosecutors that it is improper to disparage the defense in closing arguments or to suggest that a defense offered is some sort of standard defense offered by defendants when nothing else will work.” (quotation omitted).

It is true that “direct evidence of intent is rare,” d 419, 425 (Minn. 1997), but this is one of those rare cases.

“Although a prosecutor can argue that a particular defense has no merit, a prosecutor may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense that might succeed.” (quotation omitted); (“[I]t is improper to disparage the defense in closing arguments or to suggest that a defense offered is some sort of standard defense offered by defendants when nothing else will work.” (Quotation omitted.)

or committed reversible misconduct by “violating a pretrial order, disparaging the defense, and injecting broad social issues into the case.” “This court has repeatedly warned prosecutors that it is improper to disparage the defense in closing arguments or to suggest that a defense offered is some sor t of standard defense offered by defendants when nothing else will work.” (quotation omitted).

But “[t]he fact that a defendant consumed intoxicants prior to an offense does not raise a presumption that the defendant was incapable of premeditation.”

The supreme court has “repeatedly warned prosecutors that it is improper to disparage the defense in closing arguments.” Bailey, d at 403 () .

A prosecutor is entitled to vigorously argue the state’s case, but he cannot belittle defense tactics abstractly or suggest that a defense was raised “because it was the only defense that may be successful.” Carridine, d at 149 (quotation omitted)

As a general rule, “when a witness is the defendant in a criminal proceeding, cross- examination as to the witness’s prior convictions may ordinarily extend only to the fact of conviction, the nature of the offense, and the identity of the defendant.” State v. Griese , (M inn.

See State v. Griese , , 427- 28 (Minn. 1997) .

State v. Anderson , , 242 (Minn. 2010) (citing State v. Griese , , 429 (Minn. 1997) ).

Likewise, the prosecutor described a defense expert with inflammatory language and suggested that the defense had improper motives in hiring the expert.

The state also cannot argue that a defense is the type of defense raised when “nothing else will work.” (quotation omitted) .

Although proof of motive is not necessary to find premeditation, evidence that Fox had a motive to kill Baker may be used to support a finding of premeditation.

Although a prosecutor may argue that a particular defense has no merit, a prosecutor “may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense that might succeed.” ().

See Bird, d at 679 (“[T]he expert psychiatric testimony that may be admitted under this exception concerns the defendant’s past history of mental illness as evidenced by a clinical mental health record.”); *239 426 (Minn.1997) (“Nowhere in [the doctor’s] testimony or its offer of proof did defense counsel offer evidence of the prior diagnosis of [the defendant’s] mental illness or clinical records related to [the defendant’s] condition before the events of the crime....

See Wren, d at 393 (Minn.2007) (misconduct that spanned 3 pages in a 70-page closing argument did not affect defendant’s substantial rights); (misconduct that spanned 2 pages in a 50-page closing argument did not affect defendant’s substantial rights).

Although a prosecutor can argue that a particular defense has no merit, a prosecutor “may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense that might succeed.” Martin, d at 108 ().