Cited by

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

1039 citing documents.

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
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