Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hoppe, 641 N.W.2d 315.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
20, 2007); rev. denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
As Okero points out, we have held that “[i]t is improper for the prosecutor to make statements urging the jury to protect society or send a message with its verdict.” (d 815, 819 (Minn. 1993) ) (other citation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“It is improper for a prosecutor to urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
in which the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating that the defendant’s argument was “ridiculous” and that jurors should not be “snowed” by it.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
It is improper for a prosecutor to “distract the jury from its proper role of deciding whether the state has met its burden” by urging the jury “to protect society with its verdict.” (), rev. denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And although a prosecutor does engage in misconduct by commenting on a defendant’s failure to testify or present evidence at trial, rev. denied (Minn. May 14, 2002), Bartz presents no authority supporting his contention that a prosecutor acts improperly by referencing a defendant’s pretrial failure to respond to allegations during a voluntary, noncustodial police interview.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We have stated that it is “improper for a prosecutor to urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.” rev. denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-22 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Likewise, a prosecutor commits misconduct by urging the ju ry to “protect their ‘loved ones’ and Minnesota’s citizens from future harm.” State v. Hoppe , review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A prosecutor may not “urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.” review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
Abraham Deng Woi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Peterson , (concluding a prosecutor’s remarks about multiple child victims, when the defendant was only charged with assaulting one victim, were improper)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that it is misconduct to refer to the defense’s argument as ridiculous), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000); -22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after considering all instances of prosecutorial misconduct), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000) (stating that courts consider a prosecutor’s closing argument as a whole when determining whether misconduct occurred); -22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after considering all instances of prosecutorial misconduct), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In addition, “[i]t is improper for a prosecutor to urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.” review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It is “inappropriate for a prosecutor to present arguments calculated to inflame a jury’s passions or prejudices.” review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000) (stating when courts consider claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument the arguments are considered as a whole); -22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after looking at all instances of prosecutorial misconduct taken together), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000) (stating when courts consider claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument the arguments are considered as a whole); d 315, 321-22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after considering all instances of prosecutorial misconduct), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A prosecutor is not permitted to appeal to the passions of the jury during closing argument” and should “avoid arguments that divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused.” Nunn, d at 661–62 (quotations omitted); (“It is improper for a prosecutor to urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.”), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“It is improper for a prosecutor to urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.” review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In general, it is improper for the prosecutor “to urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.” re view denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).