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. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
    (“prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant”).
  • State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
  • Distinguished State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
    (holding that prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s failure to call witnesses or to contra-diet testimony constituted prosecutorial misconduct because comment might suggest to the jury that defendant bears some burden of proof).
  • State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
    A “prosecutor must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant,” or otherwise seek to distract the jury from its proper role of deciding whether the state has met its burden, see Salitros, d at 819 .
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
    In addition, in which we reversed the defendant’s conviction on the basis of improper argument, the misconduct in closing argument in this case was limited to a little more than two pages in a more than 50-page closing argument and cannot be said to have “permeated the entire closing argument.” Id.
  • State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Reviewing courts will “pay special attention to [a prosecutor’s] statements that may inflame or prejudice the jury where credibility is a central issue.”