Cited by

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

1028 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 294, 297-300 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Parker , -26 (Minn. 2017) (reiterating the standard).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Anthony Pitts, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 294, 300 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-1579 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).
Ernesto Torres Garcia, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Prosecutorial error does not affect 11 a defendant’s substantial rights when “there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The state relies most heavily on State v. Ramey , -99 (Minn. 2006), for the proposition that a timely objection is required to preserve an assertion of error.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting it has “not yet decided whether this two -tiered approach” remains viable) ; State v. Ramey , n.4 (Minn. 2006) (“We leave for another day the question of whether the .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” State v. Ramey , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
" State v. Hayes , , 555 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006) ).
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
See State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
David Wayne Benolt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.4 (Minn. 2006) (“We leave for another day the question of whether the Caron two-tiered approach should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating “when the defendant demonstrates that the prosecutor’s conduct constitute s an error that is plain, th e burden would then shift to the state to demonstrate lack of prejudice; that is, the misconduct did not affect substantial rights”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 294, 297-300 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Parker , -26 (Minn. 2017) (reiterating the standard).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We are "an error-correcting court," State v. Grigsby , , 114 (Minn. App. 2011), aff'd , and lack the supreme court's supervisory power, see State v. Ramey , , 302 n.6 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey , ( quotations and citations omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by