Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294.
- 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
- State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Caine
746 N.W.2d 339
Minn. 2008
When a defendant fails to object to prosecutorial misconduct at trial, he ordinarily “forfeits appellate consideration of the issue.”
- State v. Simion 745 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Simion
745 N.W.2d 830
Minn. 2008
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
- State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
- State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
- State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
- State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
- State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
- State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
- State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
-
State v. Vance
734 N.W.2d 650
Minn. 2007
In a recent case, we stated that an error is plain “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
- State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
- State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
- State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
- State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
- State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
- State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Haynes 725 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2007
- State v. Haynes 725 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2007
- State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Dobbins
725 N.W.2d 492
Minn. 2006
(stating when a defendant fails to object at trial, he generally forfeits consideration of prosecutorial mis *507 conduct on appeal, but a reviewing court can still address the misconduct under the plain error doctrine).
- State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006