Cited by

However, “a prosecutor’s comment on the lack of evidence supporting a defense theory does not improperly shift the burden,” and a prosecutor “may argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible,”

This amounted to “ultimate issue testimony” that “merely [told] the jury what result to reach.”

403; -13 (Minn. 2003) (concluding that expert testimony was more prejudicial than probative because it was duplicative of other testimony, based on hearsay, and expressed an opinion on an ultimate issue).

Vouching “occurs when the government implies a guarantee of a w itness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opi nion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Lopez-Rios , , 615 (Minn. 2003) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 609.04 , subd.

see also State v. Lopez-Rios , , 612 (Minn. 2003) (holding gang-expert's testimony was erroneously admitted because the expert opined that the defendant was a member of the gang and because it was largely duplicative of previous witness testimony).

But “the state may argue that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”

occurs when the govern ment implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the reco rd, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted).

occurs when the government implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” State v. Lopez-Rios , (quotation omitted).

Appellant argues that “the prosecutor in closing argument repeatedly vouched for the credibility of his witnesses.” Impermissible vouching occurs “when the government implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotations omitted).

is a pretty darn good witness, and he was pretty candid with you and pretty straightforward.” Improper vouching “occurs when the [state] implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted).

Impermissible vouching occurs when the state “implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has held that “failure to swear a witness in an ordinary civil trial, or even in a criminal trial, may be waived by failure to object.” (quotation omitted) (concluding that defendant waived argument that district court erred by allowing witness to testify without being sworn by failing to object at trial).2 “Plain error affecting a substantial right can be considered .

Impermissible vouching occurs “when the government implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotation omitted).

there was no reasonable possibility that gang-expert testimony substantially influenced the guilty verdict because the testimony was “for the most part, duplica-tive of testimony given by witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the relevant events and which established that [the defendant] was a member of, and involved with, a group that operated as a criminal gang”)

“In a crime committed for the benefit of a gang, the underlying crime is an included crime.”

3, 2012); (noting that the crime underlying an offense of a crime committed for the benefit of a gang is a lesser-included offense).

Impermissible vouching occurs “when the government implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotations omitted).

704, but an expert should not testify about a mixed question of law and fact if the testimony “would merely tell the jury what result to reach,”

Prosecutorial Vouching Impermissible vouching occurs “when the government implies a guarantee of a witness’s truthfulness, refers to facts outside the record, or expresses a personal opinion 14 as to a witness’s credibility.” (quotations omitted).

(stating that a prosecutor may argue in closing argument that certain witnesses were or were not credible).

And “[i]n a crime committed for the benefit of a gang, the underlying crime is an included crime.” (citation omitted).

702, expert testimony will be allowed if “the testimony will assist the jury in resolving factual questions presented.”