prosecutorial error in Minnesota

2023If the first three prongs of the test are satisfied, then the reviewing court must “assess[] whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302.

2023If the first three prongs of the test are satisfied, then the reviewing court must “assess[] whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 .

2023The State, as noted above, has failed to show that there is no reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the jury’s verdict, and the error in misstating the presumption of innocence strikes at “that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.’ ” Winship, 397 U.S. at 363 (quoting Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)). “[W]hen there is a reasonable likelihood that but for the . . . error,” the result would be different, affirming Portillo’s conviction would “adversely

2023The State, as noted above, has failed to show that there is no reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the jury’s verdict, and the error in misstating the presumption of innocence strikes at “that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.’ ” Winship, 397 U.S. at 363 (quoting Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)). “[W]hen there is a reasonable likelihood that but for the . . . error,” the result would be different, affirming Portillo’s conviction would “adversely

2023When evaluating whether a reasonable likelihood exists that a prosecutorial error significantly impacted the verdict of 3 In addition to not objecting to the rebuttal argument, defense counsel did not request a defense rebuttal under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03, subd. 12(k), which allows counsel to respond directly to a “misstatement of law . . . or an inflammatory or prejudicial statement.” D-5 the jury, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts

2023When evaluating whether a reasonable likelihood exists that a prosecutorial error significantly impacted the verdict of 3 In addition to not objecting to the rebuttal argument, defense counsel did not request a defense rebuttal under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03, subd. 12(k), which allows counsel to respond directly to a “misstatement of law . . . or an inflammatory or prejudicial statement.” D-5 the jury, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts

2023See, e.g., State v. Coleman, 957 N.W.2d 72, 83 (Minn. 2021) (concluding that the alleged prosecutorial error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights); State v. Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677, 689 (Minn. 2008) (concluding that the alleged prosecutorial error was not plain); State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910, 917–19 (Minn. 2002) (finding no prosecutorial error).

2023See, e.g., State v. Coleman, 957 N.W.2d 72 , 83 (Minn. 2021) (concluding that the alleged prosecutorial error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights); State v. Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677, 689 (Minn. 2008) (concluding that the alleged prosecutorial error was not plain); State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910 , 917–19 (Minn. 2002) (finding no prosecutorial error).

2023For example, this state’s courts have declined to reverse in the interest of fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings when a defendant did not personally waive his right to a jury trial on an element of a crime, but “[r]eversal and remand would likely result in either a valid waiver and identical evidence before a jury charged with the same instructions or a trial in which the jury is informed of [prior bad acts] and is charged with the elevated offenses.” State v. Kuhlmann, 780 N.W.2d 401, 406 (Minn. App. 2010).

2023For example, this state’s courts have declined to reverse in the interest of fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings when a defendant did not personally waive his right to a jury trial on an element of a crime, but “[r]eversal and remand would likely result in either a valid waiver and identical evidence before a jury charged with the same instructions or a trial in which the jury is informed of [prior bad acts] and is charged with the elevated offenses.” State v. Kuhlmann, 780 N.W.2d 401, 406 (Minn. App. 2010).

2023The State, as noted above, has failed to show that there is no reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the jury’s verdict, and the error in misstating the presumption of innocence strikes at “that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.’ ” Winship, 397 U.S. at 363 (quoting Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)). “[W]hen there is a reasonable likelihood that but for the . . . error,” the result would be different, affirming Portillo’s conviction would “adversely

2023The State, as noted above, has failed to show that there is no reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the jury’s verdict, and the error in misstating the presumption of innocence strikes at “that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.’ ” Winship, 397 U.S. at 363 (quoting Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)). “[W]hen there is a reasonable likelihood that but for the . . . error,” the result would be different, affirming Portillo’s conviction would “adversely

2015“When an objection was not made to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, [appellate courts] review under a modified plain-error test.” State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn. 2009).

2015Prosecutorial error results from violations of a district court’s orders, including “attempting to elicit or actually eliciting clearly inadmissible evidence.” State v. Fields, 730 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007).

2012State v. Hill, 801 N.W.2d 646, 654 (Minn.2011).

2009An appellant is “entitled to a new trial if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying appellant a fair trial.” State v. Keeton, 589 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Minn.1998).

2007State v. Pendleton, 706 N.W.2d 500, 509 (Minn. 2005).

2005See State v. Race, 383 N.W.2d 656, 664 (Minn. 1986).

1993This immunity protects prosecutors “ ‘from harassment by unfounded litigation’ and ensures that prosecution remains ‘vigorous and fearless.’ ” Barry v. Johnson, 350 N.W.2d 498, 499 (Minn.App.1984) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 423-27 , 96 S.Ct. at 991-93 ), pet. for rev. denied (Sept. 12, 1984).

1986See State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574, 590 (Minn.1982); Tucker v. State, 309 Minn. 482, 489 , 245 N.W.2d 199, 203 (1976).

1986See State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574, 590 (Minn.1982); Tucker v. State, 309 Minn. 482, 489 , 245 N.W.2d 199, 203 (1976).

1986See State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574, 590 (Minn.1982); Tucker v. State, 309 Minn. 482, 489 , 245 N.W.2d 199, 203 (1976).