Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Parker, 353 N.W.2d 122.

152 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In evaluating that question, the reviewing court “assum[es] the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.”
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
The determination of the propriety of a prosecutor’s closing argument is “ ‘within the sound discretion of *752 the trial court.’ ” ().
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
The determination of the propriety of a prosecutor’s closing argument is generally “ ‘within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ ” ().
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
It is improper for a prosecutor to “personally [endorse] the credibility of the state’s witnesses [or to inject] personal opinion.”
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
We “assum[e] the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.”
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
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“The propriety of a prosecutor’s final argument is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
(citations omitted); see, -78 (Minn.1979).
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
Second, James argues the prosecutor erred by making a closing argument “replete with improper and inflammatory remarks.” With respect to the final argument, -28 (Minn.1984): The propriety of a prosecutor’s final argument is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by