Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844.

142 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial that includes the right to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-52 (Minn. 2011) (holding that a district court’s failure to obtain the defendant’s personal waiver of the right to a jury trial on the stipulated, previous-conviction elements of the charged offenses was not structural error and concluding that the error should be reviewed for plain error because the defendant
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(determining that failure to obtain a proper waiver of an element of an offense is “trial error,” and when it is unobjected to at trial, it should be reviewed for plain error).
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Under plain error analysis, we must determine whether there was error, that was plain, and that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
at 626-27 (citing Griller, d at 740 ); -53 (Minn.2011).
State v. Kelley 832 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kelley 832 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“If each of these prongs is met, [an appellate court] will address the error only if it seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.” -53 (Minn.2011).
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. Dao Xiong 829 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear or obvious.”
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear or obvious.”
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 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. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012