Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little, 851 N.W.2d 878.

144 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, n.2 (Minn. 2014) (“[I]n several cases, we have questioned the continued viability of [the] two-tiered approach to harmless-error review of prosecutorial misconduct.”); (recognizing two-tiered Caron test).
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
14 An error is plain if it is clear or obvious in that “it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that if the appellate court finds a remedy appropriate under plain-error analysis, it need not resolve which standard applies).
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
for the proposition that Melchert-Dinkel was entitled to withdraw his jury-trial waiver on remand and receive a new trial.
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, n.2 (Minn. 2014) (“[I]n several cases, we have questioned the continued viability of [the] two-tiered approach to harmless-error review of prosecutorial misconduct.”); Carridine, d at 150 (“Whether the [two-tiered] test should continue to apply to objected-to prosecutorial misconduct has been the subj
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Beaulieu, d at 278-79 (discussing plain-error rule generally); Stufflebean, d at 317 (requiring objection to prevail on appeal on biased-juror argument); n.3 (Minn. 2014) (Stras, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“It is 13 II.
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In State v. Little, the supreme court considered “whether a defendant who has waived his right to a jury trial must renew that waiver when the State subsequently amends the complaint to add a new charge.”
State of Minnesota v. Leonard James Fisherman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leonard James Fisherman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Even if the appellant’s claim of error clears these hurdles, we will reverse only if the error also “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Fue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant may waive his jury-trial rights, “but the waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error is clear or obvious if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Even then we will reverse only if, 5 additionally, the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Paris Pierre Pollard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Pierre Pollard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The state concedes the first two plain-error requirements, – 84 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error is clear or obvious if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If these three requirements are satisfied, an appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement, that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.” d 878, 884 (Minn. 2014).
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
Rossberg, d at 618 ; Griller, d at 741 .
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
in three important respects.
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
11 in support of vacating his conviction for receiving stolen property because he did not waive his right to a jury trial on that charge.
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 878, 886 (Minn. 2014); see also United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that appellant satisfied fourth requirement of plain-error test with respect to double-jeopardy argument).
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An error is clear or obvious if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Alan Fellner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Alan Fellner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 878, 884 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014