Cited by

State v. Johnson , , 730 (Minn. 2000) (quoting State v. Porter , , 365 (Minn. 1995) ).

State v. Porter , see State v. Jahnke, 3 11 (Minn. App. 198 4) (“Prosecutors in sexual abuse cases must abide by the highest behavior.”).

State v. Porter , , 363 (Minn. 1995).

Inflaming passions Appellant argues that the prosecutor’s references to his extramarital affair “smear[ed]” his name and “inappropriately incite[d] a moral prejudice against him within the jury.” As a general rule, the state “must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” State v. Porter

e jury not only that the alcohol affected [appellant’s] ability to drive, it needed to prove that the alcohol impaired it.” The state counters that the prosecutor did not misstate the law because appellant’s statements were, in fact, a confession, and the prosecutor’s arguments were “ba sed on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence.”

(citing State v. Porter , ).

We reject Rose’s argument that this case is like State v. Porter, in which the supreme court determined that the prosecutor’s appeal to emotions was a “blatant attempt to impinge on juror independence.” d 359, 363−64 (Minn. 1995).

State v. Porter , -66 (Minn. 1995).

Rather, the state’s closing arguments must be “based on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence.”

A. Reasonableness of Grazzini-Rucki’s Affirmative Defense The state “must avoid inflaming the jury ’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” State v. Porter

A prosecutor’s closing arguments must be “based on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence.”

“It is improper for a prosecutor in clos ing argument to personally endorse the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Porter

A prosecutor “commit[s] misconduct by alluding to [the defendant’s] failure to contradict certain testimony.”

In closing argument, a prosecutor must “avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the' defendant.”

A state’s closing arguments must be “based on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence.”

13 A “prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant,” and we must pay “special attention to statements that may inflame or prejudice the jury where credibility is a central issue.”

Thus, a prosecutor “may not seek a conviction at any price” and “must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” -63 (Minn. 1995).

supreme court concluded that it was prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor to refer to the defendant’s failure to impeach one of the state’s witnesses by using the phrase “without impeachment by any cross-examination,” reasoning that “[a] prosecutor may not comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses or to contradict 18 testimony.” –65 (Minn. 1995).

A prosecutor 16 “must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.”

(concluding that arguing testimony is “uncontradicted” or is “without impeachment by any cross-examination” constitutes misconduct).

“While the state’s argument need not be colorless, it must be based on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence.” (quotation omitted).