12 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rameygreen2 sentences2015Anderson established that the prosecutor committed an error that is plain.1 See Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”); Stofflet, 281 N.W.2d at 497 (“The rule is that a prosecutor should not base [her] argument on facts not in evidence.”). 2014Id. 8 Eliciting Inadmissible Testimony Evans argues that the prosecutor committed error when she elicited inadmissible testimony from the two police officers about safety concerns related to domestic-assault calls, domestic-assault patterns, and the nature of the location where Evans was arrested. | 4 | 11 |
Montanaro v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 734 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that “to the extent that any of the prosecutor’s statements made during closing argument constituted misconduct, that misconduct ... did not have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict and thus did not affect Mon-tanaro’s substantial rights”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stoffletgreen1 sentence2015Anderson established that the prosecutor committed an error that is plain.1 See Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”); Stofflet, 281 N.W.2d at 497 (“The rule is that a prosecutor should not base [her] argument on facts not in evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.