Cited by

d at 556; (holding it was misconduct for a prosecutor to refer to the jurors as “protectors of youn g girls” when the alleged victims were four young girls, and to ask during voir dire whether the jurors had heard of cases in which a defendant was charge d, acquitted, and then subs equently committed a

Rules of evidence are “applicable to any trial held after the effective date of the amendment.” review denied (Minn. May 22, 1986) .

Rules of evidence are “applicable to any trial held after the effective date of the amendment.” review denied (Minn. May 22, 1986).

Id.; see State v. Gaulke, 281 Minn. 327, 330, review denied (Minn. May 22, 1986).

Compare Nunn, d at 661–62 (concluding that prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument by stating that defendant’s victims deserved 11 protection), (“The prosecution’s reference in his closing argument to the jurors as protectors of young girls is improper.”), review denied (Minn. May 22, 1986).

Thus, this court focuses its analysis on whether Misters’s admission was voluntarily given, or whether it was in response to interrogation or its “functional equivalent.” review denied (Minn. May 22, 1986).

-23 (Minn.App.1986) (concluding offense was not covered by plain language of statute mandating minimum sentence for “second or subsequent offense,” which definí *728 tion was satisfied if actor had been convicted under specified statutes “prior to conviction” on second or subsequent offense, where defendant was co

-23 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.

(holding that the testimony of a physician, based on an exception to the physician-patient privilege in a statute, was proper where the statute became effective after the date of the communication but before the date of trial).