Cited by

(“Courts presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.”).

It is well established that a witness may not vouch for or against another witness’s credibility, and a prosecutor may not intentionally elicit such testimony, d 548, 551 (Minn. 1996).

(stating that vouching generally occurs when one witness makes an explicit statement about credibility of another witness).

“Courts presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.”

–31, 834 (Minn. 1998); (upholding the admission of Spreigl evidence to show that the defendant’s motive to commit murder was to silence a witness to outstanding robbery charges against the defendant).

And “[c]ourts presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.”

d 824, 835 (Minn. 1998) (“Courts presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.”).

(“[O]ne witness cannot vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.”).

(“We assume that the jury follows a court’s instructions.”).

(holding that there was no improper vouching when the officer “did not testify that [an informant] was telling the truth or that he believed one witness over another”).

“The credibility of a witness is for the jury to decide.” (quotation omitted).

(“We assume that the jury follows a [district] court’s instructions.”).

14 Having reviewed the record in light of the four factors set forth above, and considering the context of the entire trial and the limited nature of the threat evidence, Maye has failed to show a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted threat evidence significantly affected the verdict.

(“We assume that the jury follows a [district] court’s instructions.”).

-90 (Minn. 2001) (concluding expert testimony about the common behaviors of adolescent victims of sexual abuse is not impermissible vouching); (concluding an officer did not impermissibly vouch for other witness’ credibility as the officer did not state he believed one witness over another).

A trial is unfair if a witness testifies by “vouch[ing] for or against the credibility of another witness.”

Generall y, “one witness cannot vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.”

(quotation omitted); see, (noting the supreme court’s concern about a police officer’s testimony, regarding a defendant’s confession, that the officer “had no doubt whatsoever that [he] was taking a truthful statement”).

d 824, 835 (Minn. 1998) (stating that juries are presumed to follow instructions).

(stating that appellate courts assume that jury follows the district court’s instructions).

One witness may not “vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.”

“[O]ne witness cannot vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.”

Accordingly, one witness may not “vouch for or against the cred ibility of another witness.” d 824, 835 (Minn. 1998).

“[O]ne witness cannot vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.”

One witness cannot vouch for the credib ility of another witness because “the credibility of a witness is fo r the jury to decide.” State v. Ferguson , (quoting State v. Koskela , ).