Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815.

215 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
While the prosecutor has latitude to respond to the defendant’s arguments, he may not make comments that inflame the passions of jurors or make “predictions of the consequences of the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A prosecutor “may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record” during closing argument, but it “is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quotation omitted).
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court has “cautioned prosecutors against generally belittling a particular defense in the abstract” but also has “made it clear that the prosecutor is free to specifically argue that there is no merit to a particular defense in view of the evidence or no merit to a particular argument.”
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
It is unprofessional conduct[, however,] for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.’ ” Bobo, d at 142 (); see McCray, d at 753-54 ; -20 (Minn.1980).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A prosecutor “may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record” during closing argument, but it “is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally 8 to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
“It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In her closing argument, the prosecutor stated that the victim “wasn’t even touching [appellant].” “Prosecutors and defense counsel alike have an ethical responsibility to avoid making improper closing arguments.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(ordering new trial where prosecutor argued that the case “boiled down into one word, accountability”).
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
Put differently, our power to reverse “prophylactically or in the interests of justice comes from our power to supervise the trial courts.”
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
A prosecutor “is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” () (internal quotation marks removed).
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
(explaining that “a prosecutor is free to specifically argue that there is no merit to a particular defense in view of the evidence or no merit to a particular argument”).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A prosecutor may not “express his or her personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.’ ” (quoting I ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Special Functions of the Trial Judge Standard 3-5.8 (2d ed. 1979)).
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A prosecutor should not “refer to facts not in evidence,” and a prosecutor’s statements may not be “calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury,” (quotation omitted).
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
at 682-83 ; (finding misconduct when the prosecutor said that defense attorneys always try to draw attention away from their clients).
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
A prosecutor may not make arguments “calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” (quotation omitted).