Cited by

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

1039 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Carlos Kendall Duncan 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 v. Jermaine Deangelo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 294, 297-300 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Parker , -26 (Minn. 2017) (reiterating the standard).
State of Minnesota v. Blayon Lawrence Yuoh Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Eugene Berg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. James Earl Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Clifford Needham 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 v. Rondell Russell Camp Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Edward Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Bruce John Johnson 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).
Travis Lee Keller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(establishing that the defendant must establish (1) error and (2) that the error w as plain, and if established, that (3) the burden then shifts to the state to show that the m isconduct did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights).2 On appeal, Keller argues that the prosecutor committed
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lee Cooley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Ordinarily, the defendant’s failure to object to an error at trial forfeits appellate consideration of the issue.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Robert Kampsula Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And because it was an error that contravenes well -established case law, the error was plain.
State of Minnesota v. Duane Griffin Gauna Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Oliver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Layne Allen Gerhardson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Daniel Kable Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Pablo Torres, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A plain error is typically shown “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Marcell Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lenny Paul Bissell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 787 (d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006)).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Sean Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Under the plain-error standard, a defendant must show t hat there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” ; (stating that the defendant has the burden of showing that each of the three prongs is satisfied).
State of Minnesota v. Lester Corey Bates Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Valerian Jacobson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Such error is plain if it is “clear” or “obvious,” which is usually “shown if the error contravenes caselaw, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Shane Lester Gullickson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Adam Joseph Rodman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Christopher Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A plain error is one that is “clear” or “obvious,” and “contrav enes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation marks omitted).
Abraham Deng Woi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Devon Larry Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Berdell Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Humberto Acevedo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,” State v. Ramey , d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Grayling Tweed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ramey , 2 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alberto Muniz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, an error is plain if it “cont ravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey
State of Minnesota v. Ilyes Omar Ibrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ruben Lucero Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, State v. Strommen , d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002), and an error is clear or o bvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
State of Minnesota v. Richard Thomas Bandow Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Yassin Ali Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Bilal Chughtai Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Chughtai did not object at trial to the use of the term “domestic abuse.” “Ordinarily, the defendant’s failure to object to an error at trial forfeits appellate consideration of the issue.”
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Lee Villa Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cody James Wutzke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, such an error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Caldwell v. State , n.6 (Minn. 2016); State v. Ramey , d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Geral Leanerd Halbert Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Donald Charles Ancke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The burden is on the state.” Generally, prosecutors may not allude “in argument to the defendant’s exercise of the right not to testify.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by