State v. Rule

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Osgood

    A20-0061 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2021)

    Osgood argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that there was no evidence before the jury that 5-fluoro-MDMB-PICA caused A.M. to act aggressively, when it was the prosecutor who had convinced the district court to exclude the testimony about the possible effects of 5-fluoro-MDMB-PICA. Osgood cites our decision in State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn. App. 1984), as support for the proposition that making such an argument rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. In Rule, "[t]he prosecutor argued, over objection, that appellant had totally failed to show a history of bad blood between the parties that would justify self defense."

  2. State v. Brewer

    505 A.2d 774 (Me. 1985)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that "in a criminal case the failure of a party to call a witness does not permit the opposing party to argue, or the factfinder to draw, any inference as to whether the witness's testimony would be favorable or unfavorable to either party"

    Such a result is impermissible. State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. App. 1984); State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1974); State v. Jefferson, 116 R.I. 124, 353 A.2d 190, 199 (1976); State v. Taylor, ___ R.I. ___, 425 A.2d 1231, 1234-36 (1981); State v. Posey, 269 S.C. 500, 238 S.E.2d 176 (1977). Accord Whitman, 429 A.2d at 209 (Roberts, J., concurring, joined by Godfrey, J.).

  3. State v. Comeaux

    No. A16-1480 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2018)

    We have previously held that a district court properly refused to admit evidence that a victim terrorized the defendant six years before the incident, concluding that "an episode occurring . . . more than six years before, would not legitimately affect [the defendant's] apprehension here." State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn. App. 1984).

  4. State v. Alexander

    398 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times
    Affirming denial of continuance for substitution of counsel where court-appointed attorney showed familiarity with case and performed thorough cross-examination

    [I]n cases involving unusually serious prosecutorial misconduct this court has required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct was harmless before affirming. * * * On the other hand, in cases involving less serious prosecutorial misconduct this court has applied the test of whether the misconduct likely played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) (quoting State v. Caron, 300 Minn. at 127-28, 218 N.W.2d at 200). We believe the lesser standard is applicable here.

  5. State v. Anderson

    395 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the appellant had forfeited review of the admissibility of a videotape because of the absence of an offer of proof

    Anderson bases his argument on a case which is distinguishable. In State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), the prosecutor commented during closing argument on the defendant's failure to present evidence justifying his claim of self-defense. No curative instruction was given. This court reversed, stating: The standard for reviewing whether prosecutor misconduct is harmless depends on how egregious the conduct is.

  6. State v. Walker

    372 N.W.2d 743 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 5 times
    In Walker, we upheld the search warrant used to search Walker's home based on an affidavit which was similar to the affidavit used to search appellant's residence.

    In light of the strong evidence of Walker's guilt, we conclude that this misconduct did not likely play a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict. See State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 128, 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1974); cf. State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). We therefore conclude that a new trial is not warranted.

  7. State v. Willis

    362 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    Although not specifically stated by defense counsel, arguably the evidence supported appellant's claim he was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm. See State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). The trial court's ruling was not erroneous.