DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
    When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, we consider the argument as a whole, “rather than focusing on ‘particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.’ ” ().
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    But, when evaluating a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, this court examines 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. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    -05 (Minn.1993) (.Miranda warning not required for “[o]n-the-scene” questioning, despite fact that defendant was handcuffed); -90 (Minn.App.1984) (noting that Miranda does not prohibit all police questioning, such as “general on-site questions”).
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    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.”
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    (emphasizing that closing arguments should be reviewed “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).
  • State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    “We look, however, 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.”
  • State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    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.”
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
    When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct arising out of closing arguments, we consider the closing argument as a whole rather than focusing on particular “phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.”
  • State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (concluding that, even where closing argument was “in some respects out-of-bounds,” it is regarded as harmless error unless the misconduct played a substantial role in jury’s decision to convict).
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (finding harmless error in prejudicial admission of 15-year-old conviction where there was high likelihood of conviction without that evidence).
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
    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 v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    *214 (solitary comments cannot be taken out of context and used as a basis for reversal).
  • State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    1526, 1528 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (noting that officer’s clear statement that *920 person is not a prime suspect is not disposi-tive); (although officer told defendant several times he was not under arrest, reasonable person handcuffed and bound to stairway railing would have believed he was in custody).
  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Richardson 514 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Richardson 514 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (prosecutor’s statement unduly inflammatory).
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. VanWagner 504 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1993
  • State v. VanWagner 504 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1993