Cited by

While we agree with the state that a prosecutor is “not required to make a colorless argument,” calling a defendant a “sex offender” in this manner is an improper character attack.

“Prosecutors have ‘considerable latitude’ during closing arguments and are ‘not required to make a colorless argument.’” Patzold, d at 808 ( 7 (Minn. 1998)).

Prosecutors are also afforded “considerable latitude” during summation and are not required to “make a colorless argument.”

Second, Ambuehl claims that the prosecutor inflamed the passions of the jury by referring to him in closing argument as an “abuser.” Prosecutors are afforded “considerable latitude” during closing arguments and are not required to “make a colorless argument.”

[the] presumption of innocence goes away.” Although prosecutors have “considerable latitude” in making a closing argument and the argument is not required to be “colorless,” “[m]isstatements of the burden of proof are highl y improper and would, if demonstrated, constitute prosecutorial misconduct,”

Closing Argument Prosecutors have “considerable latitude” during closing arguments and need not “make a colorless argument.”

“Prosecutors have ‘considerable latitude’ during closing arguments and are ‘not required to make a colorless argument.’” (), review denied (Minn. Nov.

A “prosecutor has considerable latitude and is not required to make a colorless argument.”

State v. Williams , , 127 (Minn. 1998).

A prosecutor has “considerable latitude” in how she performs her closing argument, and the prosecutor may “argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record,” Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function , supra, § 3 -6.8(a).

Prosecutors have “considerable latitude” during closing arguments and are “not required to make a colorless argument.”

ion , §§ 3-6.8(a), 3-6.9 (4th ed. 2015) ( ABA Standards), Olson first argues that the prosecutor improperly stated non-record facts during his closing argument, reasoning the argument “had no connection to the events contained in the trial record .” Prosecutors have 6 “considerable latitude” during closing argument and are not required “to make a colorless argument.” State v. Williams

Prosecutors have “considerable latitude” during closing argument s and are “not required to make a colorless argument.”

“The determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the [district] court.” (quotations omitted).

“The determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court.” (quotation omitted).

But the prosecutor has “considerable latitude” in making a closing argument, and the argument is not required to be “colorless.”

“The prosecutor has the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (quotation omitted).

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).

The prosecutor “has the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be 15 drawn therefrom.”

“The prosecutor has the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (quotation omitted).

The prosecutor has “considerable latitude” in making a closing argument, and the argument is not required to be “colorless.”

The prosecutor “has the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.”

“The prosecutor has the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefore.” (quotation omitted).

“The prosecutor has the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefore.” (quotation omitted).

“The prosecutor has the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (quotation omitted).