Cited by

inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer[s].” State v. Henderson

admitted only “where the declarant is unavailable, and only 1 Garbow invokes his confrontation rights under both the Minnesota Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, but he addresses them simultaneously in light of caselaw stating that courts “apply the same analysis under both Confrontation Clauses.” see also, (stating that both constitutions “afford[] the same fundamental right, and the analysis is the same under both provisions”).

(“It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”); -746 (Minn. 2003).

See Race, d at 664 (noting that “[p]rosecutorial error is curable by corrective [jury] instructions”); (explaining that a prosecutor’s improper suggestion that a defendant has the burden of proof may be cured by a jury instruction that the defendant does not have to prove their innocence).

We will not disturb a conviction unless the prosecutor’s “misconduct, 6 viewed in light of the entire record, was so inexcusable, serious, and prejudicial that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.”

First, “[i]t is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”

“Thus, even when a defendant alleges that [her] inability to present a defense violates [her] constitutional rights, evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

An accomplice “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.”

The prosecutor’s “failure to ask certain questions” can be taken into consideration during step three of the Batson analysis to determine “whether the state’s proffered, racially-neutral explanation is merely a pretext.” State v. Henderson

d 688, 701 (Minn. 2001).

And we have affirmed a district court’s decision to exclude evidence where the evidence was “speculative and confusing,” or “not supported by an offer of proof,” see State v. Wilson

“It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”

State v. Ali , ; State v. Henderson

State v. Henderson , , 698 (Minn. 2001).

See State v. Henderson , (“As there is no indication the prosecutor persisted in trying to elicit testimony the court had ruled inadmissible, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct.”).

(citing State v. Henderson , ).

“A criminal defendant must be treated with fundamental fairness and afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” State v. Henderson , (quotation omitted).

(defining accomplice as someone who “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime wit h which the accused is charged”).

(defining accomplice as someone who “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime wit h which the accused is charged”).

6 –05 (Minn. 2001); see also State v. Palmer , (stating that appellate courts utilize same standard of review in bench trials and jury trials for evaluating sufficiency of evidence).

Following a police investigation, 1 The facts underlying Henderson’s –95 (Minn. 2001).

is whether he could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.’” ().

“[C]riminal defendants are bound by the rules of evidence, which are designed to assure fairness and reliability in ascertaining guilt or innocence.” ().

403; (“It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”).

14 To determine whether a witness is an accomplice, the district court assesses “whether the witness could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.”

“[W]hen a defendant alleges that hi s inability to present a defense violates his constitutional rights, evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the record in the light most favorable to the conviction to determine whether the evidence reasonably could have permitted the jury to convict.” –05 (Minn. 2001).

DECISION “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the record in the light most favorable to the conviction to determine whether the evidence reasonably could have permitted the [decision-maker] to convict.” -05 (Minn. 2001).

“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the record in the light most favorable to the conviction to determine whether the evidence reasonably could have permitted the jury to convict.” d 688, 704–05 (Minn. 2001).

“It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”

Smith also relies on State v. Henderson, which provides that “[i]t is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions that are calculated to elicit or insinuate an inadmissible and highly prejudicial answer.”