Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294.

1039 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Katie Marie McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A plain error is one that is “clear” or 14 “obvious” and “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brock Dupree Lam Seawright Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rachael Michelle Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Gordon Deflorin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
He must establish that the error is plain because it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” See State v. Ramey
State of Minnesota v. Ronald John Impola Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Michael Beach Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Boe Michael Tankersley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain when it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Stevie Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ramey , 7 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Prince Lashone Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and “[u]sually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Corbine Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This is typically shown “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Haukoos Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Mock Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If the appellant proves these two prongs, the n the burden shifts to the state to “demonstrate lack of prejudice; that is, the misconduct did not affect [the defendant’s] substantial rights.”
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Conway Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Prosecutors have an affirm ative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial, no matter how strong the evidence of guilt.”
State of Minnesota v. Kell Anthony Bean Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.6 (Minn. 2016); State v. Ramey
State of Minnesota v. Justin Carlos Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Richard Robert Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Francis Bragg Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Hector Rufino Vergara-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious,” and an error is clear or obvious if the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Matthew William Hedstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ramey , -300 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Autumn Blakey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Andre Westley Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Mae Dillon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Southern Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error by the district court is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Shane Lee Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Joseph Paul Myers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Cannon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ramey , -300 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Russell Wayne Melanson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 294, 299-300 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Edward Naghash Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Dejonte Antwon Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious,” and an error i s clear or obvious if the error “contravenes case law, a rule or a standard of conduct.” d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006 ) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Willard Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Ramey , (stating that “the district court is in the best position to attempt to remedy the effects of the misconduct, and it should be given this opportunity in the first instance”).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
would have had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Curtis Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(setting forth a “new approach of shifting the burden to the prosecution to show lack of prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct cases” for policy reasons).
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Jean Ryerson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Saul Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Kay Schrupp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” and an error is clear or obvious when it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cassie Ann Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This prong is met if an error “contravenes case law, a rule, or standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“On appeal, an unobjected-to error can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error a ffecting substantial rights.”).
State of Minnesota v. Cristian Albert Genchi-Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court applies “the plain error doctrine when examining unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct.” 6 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Deirdre Elise Evavold Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“before an appellate court reviews unobjected-to trial error, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affects substantial rights.”).
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
prosecu-torial misconduct.”); (“We expect that prosecutors ...
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017