Cited by

And appellate courts consider “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

To determine whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument, we examine “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

To determine whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing argument, we examine “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

The argument fails because we take the prosecutor’s statements in the context of her entire argument, and the state’s entire argument stressed that LaClaire’s minimizing “baton twirling” testimony was simply not credible.

In determining whether the state committed plain error in a closing argument, this court considers “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” d 602, 607 (Minn. 1993).

ent during closing argument by stating that the evidence presented at trial “tells an experience not of a predator on the 14 prowl, as [the prosecutor] told [the jury] in the opening argument, but a young man out partying on Saturday night who had a casual sexual encounter.” In sum, we look at “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks.”

Our decision is further bolstered by caselaw providing that “‘[o]n-the-scene’ questioning, where the officers are simply trying to get a preliminary explanation of a confusing situation, does not require a Miranda warning.” -05 (Minn. 1993).

(); (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected partly because the challenged statements constituted a minimal portion of the transcript).

To determine whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during 15 closing argument, we examine “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

When reviewing a prosecutor’s “closing argument, we review the closing argument as a whole.” ; (noting that courts look at the state’s “closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

When reviewing a closing argument for prosecutorial misconduct, we must consider “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” d 602, 607 (Minn. 1993).

We 13 consider “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” State v. Walsh

When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we consider the prosecution’s “argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks.”

In determining whether a prosecutor committed plain error in a closing argument, we consider “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing arguments, we “review the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s closing argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing arguments, we “review the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s closing argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts examine the closing argument “as a whole, 10 rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

In determining whether a prosecutor committed plain error in a closing argument, we look “at the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

We look at the “closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

13 Appellate courts examine a prosecutor’s clos ing argument as a whole, rather than examining selective phrases “that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” State v. Walsh

Rather than focusing on “selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence,” precedent requires that we examine closing arguments “as a whole.”

Appellate courts examine a prosecuting attorney ’s closing arguments as a whole, rather than examining selective phrases “that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” .

This court examines a prosecutor’s closing arguments as a whole, rather than examining selective phrases “that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” State v. Walsh

(holding state’s closing arguments must be reviewed as a whole rather than piecemeal).

In determining whether a pr osecutor misstated the law and reversible error has occurred, we must look “at the closing argument as a whole, rather than 12 just selective phrases or remarks that ma y be taken out of co ntext or given undue prominence.”

“‘On-the-scene’ questioning, where the officers are simply trying to get a prelimin ary explanation of a confusing situation, does not require a Miranda warning.” -05 (Minn. 1993).

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing 9 arguments, this court “review[s] the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

When reviewing a prosecutor’s closing arguments, this court “review[s] the closing argument as a whole.” (noting that courts look at the state’s argument “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).

When reviewing a prosecutor's statements, we examine the arguments “as a whole, rather than just se lective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

See, e.g., State v. Wofford , (“[W]here two or more offenses are linked together in point of time or circumstances so that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, or where evidence of other crimes constitutes part of the res gestae , it is admissible.”); State v. Walsh , (“Arguably, the waitress incident was admissible as part of the occurrence or episode out of which the offense charged agai nst defendant arose.” (quotati on omitted)); -27 (Minn. 2009) (holding that the distric t c

“With respect to claims of prosecutorial misconduct arising out of closing argument, we consider the closing argument as a whole rather than focus on particular ‘phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.’” Johnson, d at 728 ().

jury into believing [his] license to be in the courthouse that morning was revoked immediately upon the end of the eviction hearing.” In assessing an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, this court reviews “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

“When reviewing alleged [prosecutorial] misconduct in closing statements, this court must look at the whole argument in context, not just selective phrases or remarks.” (citing State v. Walsh , ).

This court must look “at the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”

-05 (Minn. 1993) (stating that “on-the-scene” questioning, in which an officer is simply trying to sort out a situation, is not an in-custody situation).