Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” , 302 (Minn. 2006).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
A25-1390
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
- Michael Adam Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Chad Alan Blood Milhausen, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Prosecutors are ministers of justice who “have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial, no matter how strong the evidence of guilt.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The central concern regarding prosecutorial-misconduct claims “is that [the] misconduct may deny the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of 8 conduct.” , 302 (Minn 2006).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Adam Hassan Yusuf
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“An error is plain if it ‘contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’” ().
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Donavon Dexter Boone, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
Marcus Anthony Baker, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
n.6 (Minn. 2006) (“The court of appeals does not exercise supervisory powers that are reserved to [the supreme] court.”).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Shane Joseph Gross Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Shane Joseph Gross Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
[appellate courts] -300 (Minn. 2006), under which the defendant [must show] that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that was plain.” State v. Westrom , d 145, 157 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted).
- Juan Pachuco Silva, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Rodney Allan Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious,” which is typically established “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Allan Williams
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
251 (Minn. 2023); (Minn. 2 Williams challenges Z.A.’s statements on a BWC videorecording that a man is a “fugitive” with an active warrant for his arrest.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“An error is plain if it ‘contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’” ().
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Allegations of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under a modified plain-error test, d 294, 299 (Minn. 2006) , while any objected-to prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed for harmless error
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
is that [the] misconduct may deny the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” d 294, 300 (Minn. 2006).
- State of Minnesota v. Morris Robert Chie Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Morris Robert Chie Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Mark John Jenni Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Mark John Jenni Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(outlining the modified plain-error test that applies to unobjected-to trial errors).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 1, 18 (Minn. 2024) ().
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[O]n appeal, the plain error doctrine applies to unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct.”
- State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(referring to the standard outlined in Ramey as “the modified plain-error test”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Jeramy John Wharton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025