Cited by

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

1028 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ira Dell Sholar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious because it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Plain error An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Prince Antonio Dequante Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Prince Antonio Dequante Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
it is unclear whether the two-tiered approach is controlling.
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ray Maeyaert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ray Maeyaert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Susan Patrice Long Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Susan Patrice Long Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Generally, an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
“An error is clear or obvious if it ‘contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Patrick Rush Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Milton, d at 807 (stating that “[a]n error is plain if it is ‛clear’ or ‛obvious’”); (stating that an error is plain if it violates a rule).
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 294, 296 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
8 Unobjected-to statement We review unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct under a modified plain-error standard, considering whether there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Under the modified plain-error test there must be “(1) [an] error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“On appeal, an unobjected-to error can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See [] 298, 299 n.4 [Minn. 2006] (discussing the two-tiered approach articulated in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, and “leaving for another day the question of whether the Caron two-tiered approach should continue to apply t
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious under current law, (quotation 5 omitted), and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is plain if it is “clear” or “obvious,” meaning that it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andrea Deshawn Wilkes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrea Deshawn Wilkes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because Wilkes did not object to the challenged testimony at trial, we consider whether there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016