Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brown, 815 N.W.2d 609.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
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, petitioner, Appellant,
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
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, Respondent, 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, Respondent,
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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
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, Respondent,
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Presley v. Georgia , 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 723-24 (2010)
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Marsean Juan Crockett, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 724 (2010)
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 724 (2010)
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
and therefore the trial court did not err in its jury instruction, much less commit plain error.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019