Cited by

See, (strength); (frequency); (acquittals).

(concluding that it is “extremely unlikely” that the prosecutor’s improper remarks “influenced the jury” after noting that “the remarks were isolated and not representative of the closing argument when reviewed in its entirety,” the evidence was overwhelming, and the jury acquitted Glaze of three

was used in closing argument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” (hold ing that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages .”); State v. Glaze , (holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments did not require a new trial because “the remarks were isolated and not representative of the closing argument when reviewed in its entirety”); (conclud

was used in closing argument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” Townsend v. State , (holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages”); State v. Glaze , (holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments did 12 not require a new trial because “the remarks were isolated and not representative of the closing argument when reviewed in its

was used in closing ar gument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” Townsend v. State , (holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because “[t]he improper statem ent was only two sent ences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages”); (holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments did not require a new trial because “the remarks we re isolated and not representative of the closing argument when reviewed in its entirety”); (con

g a conviction for the illegal manufacture of alcohol because evidence independent of the confession was provided); –57 (Minn. 1984) (affirming a conviction for transferring stolen property because there was evidence independent of the confession showing that the property was stolen, such as tags and labels still attached to clothing items); State v. Glaze , –60 (Minn. 1990) ( relying on evidence independent of “numerous confessions” to uphold three murder convictions).

See, e.g. , State v. Powers , , 679 (Minn. 2003) (holding that a statement did not amount to misconduct because "[t]he improper statement was only two sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages"); State v. Glaze , , 662 (Minn. 1990) (holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments did not require a new trial because "the remarks were isolated *747 and not representative of the closing argument when reviewed in its entirety").

State v. Glaze , , 661 (Minn. 1990).

(noting that a prosecutor’s improper remarks likely did not affect the verdict because the jury ultimately acquitted the defendant of three counts of premeditated murder).

(finding no prejudice to the appellant when remarks were isolated and did not represent the closing argument viewed in its entirety).

st interest is ‘proven trustworthy by independent corroborating evidence that bespeaks reliability.’ ” Hurd, d at 35 (quoting State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 5 , ); see also Dobbins, — N.W.2d at —, 2013 WL 5460940, at *4 (discussing six factors that the courts may consider when determining trustworthiness of statement against penal interest); -61 (Minn.1990) (affirming exclusion of a confession from an unavailable third-party perpetrator because record did not contain evidence corroborating

Our precedent is clear that “[e]videntiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ().

Generally, evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

The State countered that the evidence demonstrated Holt’s “consciousness of guilt.” “[E]videntiary and procedural rulings generally rest within the district court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

(affirming exclusion of confession from unavailable third party perpetrator because record did not contain evidence corroborating the confession).

(finding no prejudice to defendant when the remarks are isolated and not representative of closing argument in its entirety); (stating that the prosecutor’s argument must be evaluated as a whole, without solitary comments being taken out of context

cutorial misconduct is a shared obligation of prosecutors, who need to be aware of and comply with prescribed standards of conduct; defense counsel, who should seek corrective action by the trial court when misconduct occurs; and trial courts that, we have stated, “have a duty to intervene and caution the prosecutor, even in the absence of objection, in appropriate circumstances.”

1 See Salitros, d at 820 (reversing the conviction prophylae-tically in the exercise of the court’s supervisory power and in the interests of justice); (same); (concluding that a new trial was not warranted but emphasizing that “[p]rosecutors are officers of the court * * * and we will not hesitate in a suitable case to grant relief in the form of a new trial”).