prosecutor committed plain error in Minnesota

2026State v. Vue, 606 N.W.2d 719, 723 (Minn. App. 2000).

2026After closing arguments, the district court instructed the jury that the State offered the expert’s testimony “for the limited purpose of describing” commonalities among domestic abuse victims and that “[t]he admission of this testimony 28 does not mean that … Kingsbury suffered the domestic abuse” as that is a “fact question[] for the jury to decide.” Fravel argues that the prosecutor committed plain error by eliciting expert testimony on sexual abuse in domestic violence relationships because the prosecutor did not proffer this testimony during the pretrial hearing regarding the admissibilit

2026After closing arguments, the district court instructed the jury that the State offered the expert’s testimony “for the limited purpose of describing” commonalities among domestic abuse victims and that “[t]he admission of this testimony 28 does not mean that … Kingsbury suffered the domestic abuse” as that is a “fact question[] for the jury to decide.” Fravel argues that the prosecutor committed plain error by eliciting expert testimony on sexual abuse in domestic violence relationships because the prosecutor did not proffer this testimony during the pretrial hearing regarding the admissibilit

2026After closing arguments, the district court instructed the jury that the State offered the expert’s testimony “for the limited purpose of describing” commonalities among domestic abuse victims and that “[t]he admission of this testimony 28 does not mean that … Kingsbury suffered the domestic abuse” as that is a “fact question[] for the jury to decide.” Fravel argues that the prosecutor committed plain error by eliciting expert testimony on sexual abuse in domestic violence relationships because the prosecutor did not proffer this testimony during the pretrial hearing regarding the admissibilit

2024In determining whether a prosecutor committed plain error in a closing argument, we consider “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” State v. Walsh, 495 N.W.2d 602, 607 (Minn. 1993).

1994See also State v. Hardy, 354 N.W.2d 21, 24-25 (Minn.1984) (“even a limited elicitation, for nonhearsay purposes, of general testimony that a tip had been received that led to defendant’s prints being compared with the latent print would have been unjustified in this case because the potential of the evidence being used for an improper purpose outweighed its very limited probative value”).

1994In this case our review of the record convinces us that the prosecutor committed plain error (a) in eliciting the hearsay evidence about the tip, (b) in eliciting the drug courier profile evidence, and (c) in her closing argument, and that the cumulative effect of these errors was that defendant was deprived of a fair trial. (a) We have said a number of times that “a police officer testifying in a criminal case may not, under the guise of explaining how [the] investigation focused on defendant, relate hearsay statements of others.” State v. Cermak, 365 N.W.2d 243, 247 (Minn.1985).