Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776.

115 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(providing that where a defendant at trial did not “seek a curative instruction or request a mistrial, the question [on review] becomes whether plain error occurred when the district court .
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ().
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“The plain error analysis allows an appellate court to consider an unobjected-to error that affects a criminal defendant’s substantial rights.” (applying plain-error review to unob-jected-to failure to provide an unsolicited limiting instruction regarding use of prior convictions); Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(concluding that district court plainly erred by providing general instructions similar to those given here but failing to issue cautionary instruction specific to relationship evidence at time it was received); Meldrum, d at 21-22 .
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009