Cited by

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

1028 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(explaining burden of proof).
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
statements “let me understand this” and “let me get this straight.” And he challenges the prosecutor’s response to several of his answers with comments such as “wow” and “convenient.” 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. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
-98 (Minn. 2006) (noting that an alleged “unobjected-to error,” i.e., an error “not brought to the attention of the trial court,” can be reviewed on appeal “only if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
“An error is clear or obvious if it ‘contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious,” and “[u]sually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
That test requires us to consider whether there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Montalvo Knowles Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Montalvo Knowles Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 31.02; –99 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams 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. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Accordingly, “an unobjected-to error can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.