State v. Bartel

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Brown

    No. A23-0394 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2024)

    Third, Brown's contention that responding to the prosecutor's misstatement would have "spotlighted the inadmissible evidence and risked compounding its prejudicial effect" is unavailing. Brown cites State v. Bartel, No. A19-0022, 2020 WL 614242, at *5 (Minn.App. Feb. 10, 2020), for the proposition that he had no real opportunity to rebut the prosecutor's misstatements because obtaining a curative instruction would have amplified the effect of the improper statements. Bartel is neither binding nor persuasive.