Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726.

95 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[I]f we find that any one of the requirements [under the plain-error test] is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that prosecutor’s statements during closing statement did not individually or collectively affect appellant’s substantial rights.).
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[I]f we find that any one of the requirements [of the plain-error test] is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”).
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(explaining that if any one of the requirements of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the others need not be addressed).
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]f we find that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To conclude that the third element is not met, we must determine that “considerable evidence” in the record establishes the defendant’s guilt, or that, “as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find” that the defendant did not commit the crime
State of Minnesota v. Quincy J. Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quincy J. Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 726, 732 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[I]f we find that any one of the requirements [under the plain-error test] is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”).
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[I]f we find that any one of the requirements [under the plain-error test] is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”).
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. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[O]nly if all three prongs of the plain error rule are met will a court order a new trial and then only if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that failure to object to trial error generally waives right to review of that error but noting that Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
See, (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); (holding that defendant’s substantial rights
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
This court will order a new trial only if all three prongs of the plain error standard are satisfied and the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
te also played the audio of that final excerpt twice during its closing argument and described it as a “text book definition of murder in the first degree.” Considering the evidence and the State’s argument as a whole, we conclude that there is no reasonable likelihood that the State’s improper use of the suppressed statement “had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” 5 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
The dissent cites only two cases — —which deal directly with the time limits in the post-conviction statute at issue here.
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012