Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1/13/1995

State v. Porter

Citations

526 N.W.2d 359
1995 Minn. LEXIS 5
1995 WL 11171

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that prosecutor's comment on defendant's failure to call witnesses or to contradict testimony constituted prosecutorial misconduct because comment might suggest to the jury that defendant bears some burden of proof
concluding that arguing testimony is “uncontradicted” or is “without impeachment by any cross-examination” constitutes misconduct
stating that the state’s arguments must be based on evidence produced at trial, or reasonable inferences from that evidence, but need not be “colorless”
stating that prosecutor’s closing argument must be “based on the evidence produced at trial, or the reasonable inferences from that evidence”
concluding that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making statements that “permeated the entire closing argument” and “suggested to the jurors that they would be suckers if they acquitted Porter and there would be no sedative or salve to make them feel better”
concluding that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing, “Do you believe that? If you do and this is over, I got a time share in Santa Claus’s condo at the [N]orth [P]ole, and I will sell you some. You are not that big of suckers, and you know that”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Page

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

48 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.