Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 586 N.W.2d 123.
-
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although the state has the burden to prove all elements of the offense, the 8 prosecution is not required to make a colorless argument, d 123, 127 (Minn. 1998).
- State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
-
State v. Radke
821 N.W.2d 316
Minn. 2012
(noting that “the prosecutor has considerable latitude and is not required to make a colorless argument”).
- State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
- State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
- Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
- Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
- State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Ali
752 N.W.2d 98
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
But a prosecutor is not required to make a colorless closing argument and “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 v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
- State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
- State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
- State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000