Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brown, 815 N.W.2d 609.

160 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Lee Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“If we conclude that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, we need not consider the other prongs.).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alexander Albert Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Gerald Bloom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Loren Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(providing that, if any requirement in plain-error test is not satisfied, we need not consider other requirements).
State of Minnesota v. Malik Demone Tatum Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Ali Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The defendant has the burden of proof on the third element of the [plain-error] test, and it is considered a ‘heavy burden.’” (quoting Griller, d at 741).
State of Minnesota v. Terence Duane Maurstad Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Marquis Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Jason Lee Martin v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 609, 620 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Jaisden Harold-Dru Hanners Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jaisden Harold-Dru Hanners Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Remer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Roberto Ortega-Herrera Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nelson Randolph, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Cerney, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Fawaz Mohamed Abukar Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth James Holcomb, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding no public-trial-right violation in part because the closure occurred only during the jury instructions, which “did not comprise a proportionately large portion of the trial proceedings”).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Joseph Shea Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Eric Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Eric Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that if one prong of plain-error standard is not met, appellate courts need not analyze remaining prongs).
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“If [the appellate court] conclude[s] that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, [the court] need not consider the other prongs.”
State of Minnesota v. Eh Doh Par Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Eh Doh Par Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that a reviewing court need not consider all prongs of the plain-error test if any one prong is not satisfied).
State of Minnesota v. Trevor Stenner Shelley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
9 The constitutional guarantee to a public trial applies to “all phases of trial, including pretrial suppression hearings and jury voir dire.” State v. Brown
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Londell McClendon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Modtland Minn. Ct. App. 2022
”), and State v. Brown , (reviewing de novo defendant’s public-trial claim even though defendant did not appear to have objected when district court had courtroom doors locked during jury instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Lenard Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6, of the Minnesota Constitution provide that the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Isaac Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Loren Allen Maine Minn. Ct. App. 2021
jury voir dire.” see also Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213 (2010) (extending the right to a public trial to voir dire proceedings).
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Elijah Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Pierre Belland, II Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Presley v. Georgia , 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 723-24 (2010)
State of Minnesota v. Marsean Juan Crockett Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jason Richard Montonye Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 724 (2010)
State of Minnesota v. Gary Christopher Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 724 (2010)
State of Minnesota v. Portia Renee Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(noting that if an appellate court determines that any prong of the plain -error analysis is not satisfied, it need not consider the remaining prongs).4 IV.
State of Minnesota v. Abdulla Ibn Kaabar Venson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Loren Allen Maine Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Anthony Cruz Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
and therefore the trial court did not err in its jury instruction, much less commit plain error.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020