Cited by

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

1028 citing documents.

State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
An error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
754 n. 2 (Minn.2008) (citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , ).
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The state responds that the error was not plain because the defendant usually meets the burden of proving plain error by showing that the “error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See, (noting that once objected-to prosecutorial misconduct has been established, a defendant will be granted a new trial unless the misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which will only be found if the verdict was surely unattributable to the trial error); -99 (Minn.2006) (discussing the plain-error standard, and determining that its use should encourage objection at trial).
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
Under the plain error analysis, we generally consider an error to be “plain” if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008