Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Goelz, 743 N.W.2d 249.

95 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, [appellate courts] need not consider the other [plain-error] factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007); (proceeding directly to the third prong and considering only whether the alleged plain error was prejudicial).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error 6 affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.”
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony”); –31 (Minn. 2010) (concluding during plain-error review that “the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit any error when it granted the State’s motion to exclude the evidence on relevance grounds”); (“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and [an appellate court] will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of dis
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(noting that where a defendant fails to establish one factor of the plain-error test “we need not consider the other factors”).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
103(d); d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007) (“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.”).
Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “[i]f a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other [plain- error] factors.”).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Carridine, d at 142; Evans, d at 867
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
If these three requirements are satisfied, we then consider “whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Sahr 812 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2012
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
(“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other [plain error] factors.”).
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
In addressing an alleged error under the plain-error rule, “[i]f a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.” 1
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, -49 (Minn.2008) (“The invited error doctrine does not apply, however, if an error meets all four parts of the plain error test.”); (same).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Anderson 763 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2009
State v. Anderson 763 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2009
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
(noting that invited error doctrine “prevents a party from asserting an error ...
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008