Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 586 N.W.2d 123.

66 citing documents.

Hennepin County State of Minnesota v. Johnny Leroy Brown Hudson, C.J. Minn. 2026
d 123, 127 (Minn. 1998) (stating the prosecutor is not required to make a colorless argument and has the right to present all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn from the evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey William Boysen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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.
State of Minnesota v. Mark John Jenni Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Mark John Jenni Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Prosecutors have ‘considerable latitude’ during closing arguments and are ‘not required to make a colorless argument.’” Patzold, d at 808 ( 7 (Minn. 1998)).
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Quitter Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Prosecutors are also afforded “considerable latitude” during summation and are not required to “make a colorless argument.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrel Traverse Ambuehl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Floyd Crain, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
[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,”
State of Minnesota v. David NMN Alonzo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Closing Argument Prosecutors have “considerable latitude” during closing arguments and need not “make a colorless argument.”
State of Minnesota v. Tou Pheng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Prosecutors have ‘considerable latitude’ during closing arguments and are ‘not required to make a colorless argument.’” (), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Akeem Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A “prosecutor has considerable latitude and is not required to make a colorless argument.”
State of Minnesota v. Cassie Ann Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Hussen Hassan Hussen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Sean Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Williams , , 127 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Gordon Deflorin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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).
Paul Miguel Engen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Prosecutors have “considerable latitude” during closing arguments and are “not required to make a colorless argument.”
State of Minnesota v. Shane Lee Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Cannon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Prosecutors have “considerable latitude” during closing argument s and are “not required to make a colorless argument.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Lawrence Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the [district] court.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Oranz Calhoun Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But the prosecutor has “considerable latitude” in making a closing argument, and the argument is not required to be “colorless.”
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Jacob Whitcup, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The prosecutor has “considerable latitude” in making a closing argument, and the argument is not required to be “colorless.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).