Cited by

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

1028 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Christopher Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 “On appeal, an unobjected-to error can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights.” -98 (Minn. 2006) (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Before reviewing “an unobjected-to trial error, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
We found that there was an error and it is apparent that the error in Dereje was “plain.” , 302’ (Minn.2006) (holding that usually an error is plain when it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”).
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “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. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Unobjected-to misconduct 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. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant acknowledges that he did not object to all the alleged prosecutorial misconduct.2 Under the modified plain-error test, “there must be (1) [an] error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” (citing Griller, d at 740.
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because trial counsel did not object to the state’s opening and closing statements that appellant now claims were misconduct, this issue can only be reviewed if the prosecution’s conduct constitutes “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 31.02; -99 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer 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. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Usually this is shown if the 11 error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
N I. Mizner argues that “the prosecutor committed reversible plain error by eliciting testimony that [he] wanted to talk to an attorney when asked by police to give a second statement.” “Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial, no matter how strong the evidence of guilt.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious under current law, (quotation omitted), and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
State of Minnesota v. Leonard James Fisherman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leonard James Fisherman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015