Cited by

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

1028 citing documents.

State v. Smith 819 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”); (stating that error is “plain” when it is “clear” or “obvious”); (stating that to satisfy the second prong, “it
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
( (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.’ ” ().
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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 v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Swanson, 307 Minn. 412, 422 , (“[Carefully worded instructions by the trial court can ameliorate the effect of improper pros-ecutorial argument.”)
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. PAK 787 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. PAK 787 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Appellant has the burden of showing plain error on appeal, and, here, appellant points to nothing in the record that persuades us that the district court erred in its implicit finding that there was no prior statement that the prosecutor was required to disclose.
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
“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.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
An error is plain “if it was ‘clear’ and ‘obvious.’ ” ().
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
An error is plain if it is “clear” or “obvious” or “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009