State of Minnesota v. Michael Paul Valentine Jaros

Summary

The court held that the admission of a detective's improper opinion testimony about pornographic images on Jaros's cellphone did not require a new trial. The heightened presumption-of-prejudice standard for extrajudicial comments by court officials did not apply because the detective testified in court and was subject to cross-examination. Applying the ordinary harmless-error standard, the court concluded that the strong corroborating evidence and repeated curative instructions eliminated any reasonable possibility that the testimony significantly affected the verdict.