Cited by

“A proper closing argument should focus on the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

“A proper closing argument should focus on the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

Rather, he cites State v. Yang for the proposition that neighbor’s alibi 5 testimony was not subject to disclosure because it was rebuttal evidence, and “[d]isclosure rules do not apply to rebuttal evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

“A proper closing argument should focus on the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

“Identification is a question of fact, which the jury determines.” rev. denied (Minn. Jul.

The prosecutor permissibly acknowledged that the issue of A.H.’s credibility was for the jury to decide and “argue[d] that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility.” rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

A prosecutor may “argue that the state’s witnesses were worthy of credibility ” but “may not express a personal opinion about the witnesses’ credibility.” State v. Yang , rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

“In considering a claim of insuf ficient evidence, this court’s review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jury to reach the verdict it did.” State v. Yang , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

But “[d]isclosure rules do not apply to rebuttal evidence.” State v. Yang , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

(concluding that photographic 6 array was not impermissibly suggestive where defendant was only Hmong person among five Asian persons), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001); Seelye, d at 672-73 (concluding that photographic array was not impermissibly suggestive where defendant w

It is sufficient if all the people in the display bear a reasonable physical similarity to the accused.” (quotations and citation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

683 (Minn. App. 2001) (c oncluding that the prosecutor misstated the evidence during closing ar guments, but “minor misstatements of evidence .

(stating that it was error for prosecutor to claim that five people identified defendant in closing argument, when only three witnesses identified the defendant), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

It is sufficient if all the people in the display bear a reasonable physical similarity to the accused.” (quotations and citation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

(highlighting the district court’s use of curative instructions to a jury and rendering improper remarks as innocuous), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

(illustrating the district court’s use of curative instructions to a jury, thus rendering improper remarks as harmless.), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

The state argues that the letters were rebuttal evidence that it is not obligated to disclose, review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001), in which this court stated that “[d]isclosure rules do not apply to rebuttal evidence.” The district court has discretion to determine “what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence.” (quotation omitted).

review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

See, e.g., Andersen, d at 331 (relying on circumstantial evidence to establish identity); Bauer, d at 370 (relying on both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence to establish identity); (relying solely on direct evidence to establish identity), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

Photographs displayed in a photo array must bear a reasonable physical similarity to the accused but need not be “exact clones.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).

review denied (Minn. July 24,..2001).

Although the state’s evidence that Cham was not handicapped in his ability to understand and speak English is compelling, we afford the district court “broad discretion based on its first-hand view” of indicators that a person is handicapped in communication, including: “mispronunciations, pauses, facial expressions, and gestures.” (finding, in the context of a witness who had already begun to testify, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint an interpreter for