Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 2 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. MacLennangreen2 sentences2024In making a closing argument, the State may “vigorously argue its case” by pointing out the lack of merit in a particular defense, but it “may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only defense that may be successful.” State v. MacLennan, 702 N.W.2d 219, 236 (Minn. 2005). 2012But the State “may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only defense that may be successful.” MacLennan, 702 N.W.2d at 236 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Portergreen2 sentences2025A closing argument is improper if it “could only have been intended to inflame the jury’s passions and prejudices.” Porter, 526 N.W.2d at 364 . 2025A closing argument is improper if it “could only have been intended to inflame the jury’s passions and prejudices.” Porter, 526 N.W.2d at 364. | 1 | 1 |
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltiergreen2 sentences2025“The State may argue that there is no merit in a particular defense, but it may not belittle that defense either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only one with any hope for success.” State v. Peltier, 874 N.W.2d 792, 804 (Minn. 2016). 2025“The State may argue that there is no merit in a particular defense, but it may not belittle that defense either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only one with any hope for success.” State v. Peltier, 874 N.W.2d 792, 804 (Minn. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pearsongreen1 sentence2024Additionally, the State may present “all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.” State v. Pearson, 775 N.W.2d 155, 163 (Minn. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2009State v. Wright, 719 N.W.2d 910, 919 (Minn.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salitrosgreen1 sentence2009But the State may not “belittle the defense, either in abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only defense that may be successful.” Id. at 682-83 ; see also State v. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815, 818 (Minn.1993) (finding misconduct when the prosecutor said that defense attorneys always try to draw attention away from their clients). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2007Moreover, we have held that a prosecutor commits misconduct if he “call[s] a type of defense ‘soddy,’ or * * * suggests] that jurors would be ‘suckers’ if they believed the defense.” State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720, 730 (Minn.2000) (internal citations and emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2005State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419, 428 (Minn.1997) (quoting State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538, 549 (Minn.1994)). 2005State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419, 428 (Minn.1997) (quoting State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538, 549 (Minn.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griesegreen2 sentences2005State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419, 428 (Minn.1997) (quoting State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538, 549 (Minn.1994)). 2005State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419, 428 (Minn.1997) (quoting State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538, 549 (Minn.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2009But the State may not “belittle the defense, either in abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only defense that may be successful.” Id. at 682-83 ; see also State v. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815, 818 (Minn.1993) (finding misconduct when the prosecutor said that defense attorneys always try to draw attention away from their clients). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.