DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Porter, 526 N.W.2d 359.

215 citing documents.

  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
    -63 (Minn.1995); Salitros, d at 817 .
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    A “prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.”
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
    The state’s closing argument is not required to be “colorless, [but] it must be based on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence.”
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    And appellate courts “will pay special attention to statements that may inflame or prejudice the jury where credibility is a central issue.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
    We have consistently held that a “ ‘prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.’ ” ().
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
    A “prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.”
  • State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (stating that a prosecutor may not argue to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury).
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
    (citing State v. Morgan, 235 Minn. 388, 391 , ).
  • State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (stating that one rationale is to avoid suggesting that the defendant has any burden of proof).
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
    11 In support of his argument, in which we concluded that a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses or to contradict testimony because such comments might lead the jury to believe that the defendant has a duty to call witnesses or bears some burden o
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
    we characterized juror independence as the “heart of the jury system,” and reversed a conviction when the prosecutor in closing argument attempted to impinge on juror independence by playing to jurors’ emotions and fears.
  • State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
    -66 (Minn.1995) (granting new trial on the basis that the cumulative effect of prosecutor’s intentional and serious misconduct was an attack on juror independence).
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
    A prosecutor is permitted to argue reasonable inferences from the facts presented, and a reasonable inference from the evidence is that Neely was the person that the caller identified and claimed was not the shooter.
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
    Gates argues that the prosecutor’s statements were an attempt to “inflame the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant,”
  • State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000