Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hollins, 765 N.W.2d 125.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Juan Ramirez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The party asserting plain error has the burden of establishing all three elements.” State v. 5 Hollins
State of Minnesota v. Jaisden Harold-Dru Hanners Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jaisden Harold-Dru Hanners Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is conclusively resolved.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ajee Arylce King Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The party asserting plain error has the burden of establishing all three elements.” State v. Hollins
State of Minnesota v. John Arland Kirst Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Under the rule of intrinsic evidence, “a rule 404(b) analysis is unnecessary if the evidence of another crime is intrinsic to the crime charged.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Charles Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-16 (Minn. 2009) (recognizing the admissibility of “evidence which relates to offenses that were part of the immediate episode for which [a] defendant is being tried” (quotation omitted)); d 125, 131 (Minn. App. 2009) (concluding that “a rule 404(b) analysis is unnecessary if the evidence of another crime is intrinsic to the crime charged”).
State of Minnesota v. Lamarr Lucky Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Smith questions whether there is a meaningful difference between the intrinsic-evidence exception, d 125, 131-32 (Minn. App. 2009), and the immediate-episode exception and asks this court to hold that they are the same.
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Charles Kingbird Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-16 (Minn. 2009) (recognizing the admissibility of “evidence which relates to offenses that were part of the immediate episode for which [a] defendant is being tried” (quotation omitted)); (stating that “a rule 404(b) analysis is unnecessary if the evidence of another crime is intrinsic to the crime charged”).
State of Minnesota v. Bounkieng Sinthavong Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Anne Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An alleged error does not contrave ne caselaw unless the issue is conclusively resolved.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Deonte Darnell Lawson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is ‘conclusively resolved.’” State v. Hollins , ().
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Barthel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under c urrent law.” .
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lee Cooley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Bilal Chughtai Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Donald Charles Ancke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The discussion regarding Ancke’s warrants could have fallen under an exception to rule 404(b), because evidence of an independent crime or bad act may be admissible if excluding that evidence “would present an incoherent or incomplete story of the charged crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Phoebus Phaeton Apollo Minn. Ct. App. 2018
[meaning] it contravenes case law, rule, or a standard of conduct.” (citation and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Deonta Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Galgalo Jarso Hache Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is 10 conclusively resolved.” State v. Hollins , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rickey Maddox Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An alle ged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is conclusively resolved.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Hirman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that evidence of the criminal activity is intrinsic to the charged offense and admissible if it is inextricably intertwined with evidence of the charged offense).
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[U]nder the plain-error doctrine, we may consider the evidentiary issues if there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects the defendant’s substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “the failure to object to jury instructions or to propose specific instructions constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 125, 130-31 (Minn. App. 2009) (concluding permissive inference instruction that was “nearly identical to language found in a number of Minnesota Supreme Court cases” was not erroneous).
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
8 Liimatainen argues that “[m]ere presence at the crime scene alone is not sufficient to prove that a person aided or advised, because inaction, knowledge, or passive acquiescence does not rise to the level of criminal culpability.”
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
6 An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious” that the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”