Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schlienz, 774 N.W.2d 361.

70 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An error affects substantial rights if it is prejudicial and affects the outcome of the case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
14(3)—when the issue was not even raised in the 6 district court.3 -69 (Minn. 2009); -49 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(explaining that the judge’s communication with the prosecutor regarding 2 The state argues that Pratt has waived this argument because he “provides no documented factual support, makes no legal argument, and fails to cite any legal authority in support of his allegation of error.” We disagree.
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The judge “must maintain the integrity of the adversary system” by acting “fair to both sides” and “refrain[ing] from remarks which might injure either of the parties.”
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
-79 (Minn.2012)(involving a retired judge retained by the prosecution as an expert in an unrelated civil case who presided over a criminal defendant’s trial prosecuted by the same prosecuting authority); -69 (Minn.2009)(involving a trial judge engaged in ex parte communication with the prosecutor, during which the judge told *581 the prosecutor to be prepared to respond to an anticipated plea-withdrawal motion and suggested specific opposing arguments); -52 (Minn.2005) (involvin
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
P. 31.02 (“Plain error affecting a substantial right can be considered by the court on motion for new trial, post-trial motion, or on appeal even if it was not brought to the trial court’s attention.”); (stating that an unobjeeted-to error is reviewed for plain error).
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
(“An error affects substantial rights if it is prejudicial and affect[s] the outcome of the case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).