Cited by

(concluding prosecutor’s improper questions likely did not impact jury verdict where questions were “brief” and “isolated”).

(concluding that brief and isolated comments from witness were unlikely to have had a substantial impact on the verdict).

the supreme court concluded that when two men were talking in an elevator in the presence of jurors and said it “[did not] look too good” for the defendant, defendant’s right to a fair trial was not violated under Cox.

-81 (Minn. 1987) (affirming conviction where questions were “not deliberately prejudicial” and were “brief, isolated, not repeated, and were unlikely to have a substantial impact on the jury”).

(concluding that, where questions regarding a witness’s fear of testifying were brief and isolated, they were unlikely to have had a substantial impact on the verdict).

Holt argues for the first time on appeal that the jury should have been instructed that the evidence was only offered to show defendant’s “consciousness of guilt.” Even if evidence of threats is admissible, the court must “provide safeguards including cautionary instructions to prevent the evidence from being misused.” Harris, d at 353 ().

at 26 ; -80 (Minn.1987) (holding that evidence of a third party’s prior felonies was properly excluded, in part, because scientific evidence showed the defendant committed the charged crime).

158-60 (Minn.1977) (concluding that sufficient foundation existed where the third person testified that he accompanied the defendant to the scene of the crime); -80 (Minn.1987) (concluding that foundation was insufficient because no evidence was admitted connecting third persons to the commission of the crime).