Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Walsh, 495 N.W.2d 602.

152 citing documents.

Troy Kenneth Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Walsh , -05 (Minn. 1993) (stating that “on-the-scene” questioning, in which an officer is simply trying to sort out a confusing situation, is not an in-custody situation).
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“‘On-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).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 602, 607 (Minn. 1993).
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
McGinnis cites only State v. Walsh, in which the prosecutor stressed to the jury that “your Anoka County Crime Lab is one of the finest and most respected Crime Labs in the state.” –07 (Minn. 1993).
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
15 claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we consider “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks.”
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We look at a prosecutor’s arguments “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) (considering misconduct in closing argument); see also Montgomery, d at 399-401 (considering misconduct in opening statement and closing argument).
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“On-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) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Here, appellant’s statement “clearly had no substantial or significant impact on the verdict.” (concluding that although statements made by defendant while handcuffed to handrail violated Miranda, statements “clearly had no substantial or significant impact on the verdict”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(describing the “prosecutor’s inherently unique role in the criminal justice system, which mandates that the prosecutor not act as a zealous advocate for criminal punishment, but as the representative of the people in an effort to seek justice”).
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Even if some aspects of an argument seem out-of-bounds, “it is normally regarded as harmless error unless the misconduct played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict the defendant.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
(concluding that we review “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. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
If you say he was driving the car, then we have met our burden of proof with respect to each and every element of both of these crimes and the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” we emphasized that courts 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” to determine whether reversible error has occurred.
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
When reviewing a prosecutor's statements, we examine the arguments "as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by