Cited by

(“Character attacks are improper during closing argument.”); (stating evidence of prior bad acts may not be used “to attack the defendant’s character or to establish a criminal propensity”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

A prosecutor “must refrain from making statements that will inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(denying a motion to strike “arguments that are not supported by legal citations and arguments with which [the movant] disagrees”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

As Okero points out, we have held that “[i]t is improper for the prosecutor to make statements urging the jury to protect society or send a message with its verdict.” (d 815, 819 (Minn. 1993) ) (other citation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“It is improper for a prosecutor to urge the jury to protect society with its verdict.”), rev. denied (Minn

Further, the statement does not urge the jury to convict Jenni to protect society, rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000), nor does it urge the jury to hold Jenni accountable for his alleged conduct, d 815, 819 (Minn. 1993).

In every case, a prosecutor “must refrain from making statements that will inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

A prosecutor must not “make statements urging the jury to protect society or to send a message with its verdict,” 11 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000), but “a minimal, specific appeal to the jury to hold the defendant accountable for a crime he is charged with having committed is not improper,” State.

Other-acts evidence is often admissible to show a common scheme or plan in criminal-sexual-conduct cases “where the defendant disputes that the sexual conduct occurred or where the defendant asserts the victim is fabricating the allegations.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

In doing so, we explained that, “[i]n criminal sexual conduct cases, prior sexual conduct convictions are often probative where the defendant disputes that the sexual conduct occurred or where the defendant asserts the victim is fabricating the allegations” because the “prior convictions are relevant to show a common plan or scheme.” (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Duncan’s “five prior criminal sexual conduct convictions”), rev. denied (M

leads from sexual contacts to multiple incidents of penetration over an extended period of time.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

Appeal to improper prejudice “The prosecutor must refrain from making statements that will inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

See S (“It is improper for the prosecutor to make statements 10 urging the jury to protect society or to send a message with its verdict.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

A prosecutor may not use properly admitted Spreigl evidence “as a means to attack the defendant’s character or to establish a criminal propensity,” rev. denied (May 16, 2000), nor may the prosecutor intentionally misstate the evidence, Mayhorn, d at 788.

An appellate court may grant a motion to strike when a brief reference s facts that are outside the record or when “the brief is used as a vehicle for disrespect, insult, and slanderous accusations.” State v. Duncan, 16 (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

State v. Duncan , rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

13 a means to attack the defendant’s character or to establish a criminal propensity.” rev. denied (May 16, 2000).

While Ashfeld is correct in noting that we have previously held that a prosecutor impermissibly inflames the passions and prejudices of the jury by referring to a criminal defendant as a “predator,” State v. Duncan , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000), the present case is distinguishable: nowhere 14 in his closing argument and rebuttal did the prosecutor refer to Ashfeld as a predator or any variation of that term, and, as noted abov e, the prosecutor’s statement comparing the victim’s behavior

A prosecuting attorney’s duty is not to “seek a conviction at any price but, rather, is to act as a minister of justice.” 5 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

Neither may they make arguments that “inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

25, 2004); State v. Duncan , (concluding that argumen t in child-abuse case that “[i]t’s time in this country that we start believing kids” was misconduct because it urged jurors to “return a guilty verdict .

Prosecutors “must refrain from making statements that will inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

ant to state on the record the desire to have such an instruction given.” CRIMJIG 3.17, cmt.; see State v. Gomez , d 871, 880 (Minn. 2006) (“If the defendant requests the instruction, the court or the defendant’s counsel must make a record of the defendant’s clear consent and insistence that the instruction be given.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)); (reversing and remanding for new trial because defendant was deprived of right to fair trial , in part, when district court gave no - adverse

See, (complainant said that the d efendant would “touch her on her ‘chest’ and between her legs”); (child/juvenile victims referred to different parts of anatomy by various euphemisms); (victim stated that defendant had “touched her with h imself” and that he hurt her w ith “his weiner”), review denied (Minn. Oct.

“It is improper for the prosecutor to make statements urging the jury to protect society or to send a message with its verdict.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

The prosecutor also “must refrain from making statements that will inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

Appellant attempts to meet this burden and obtain a new trial by relying on three Minnesota cases, review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000)

d 551, 555 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

n.1 (Minn. App. 2000) (stating that a district court did not err when i t instructed the jury on sexual penetration as “[p]enetration includes rubbing of the fingers between the folds of the vagina”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

send a message with its verdict.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

“The prosecutor’s closing arguments must not distract the jury from its prop er role of deciding whether the state has met its burden.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

2d 9, 20 ( Minn. 2004) (stating that although a prosecutor may argue a witness’s credibility, she may not interject her personal opinion so as to attach herself to the cause she represents); d 717, 721 (Minn. App. 1997) (stating that it is misconduct for a prosecutor to characterize the defendant as “deliberately attempting to ‘mislead’ the jury”); (stating that it is misconduct for a prosecutor to “make statements urging the jury to protect society or to send a message with its verdict”), revie

State v. Duncan , 7 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

State v. Duncan , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

-58 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(reversing convictions when cumulative effect of individually harmless errors deprived defendants of a fair trial), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

But such evidence may not be used as a means to attack the defendant’s character or to establish a criminal propensity.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

See, (finding that the prosecutor’s references to defendant as a “predator,” as well as various other forms of the word, made several times during its closing argument, was intended to improperly inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury).