Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269.

216 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
App. P. 103.04; -79 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
When these three requirements are 6 met, “we may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (alteration in original) ( (internal quotation marks 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
An appellate court reviews jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether [they] accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious” and “is (or should be) apparent to the trial court.”
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 269, 277 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The ambiguity of the record furthers the point that even if the district court erred in admitting Misters’s acknowledgement, such error was not “clear” or “obvious” and thus not “plain.” aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
As to the third prong, whether substantial rights were affected, a defendant bears “the heavy burden of proving that ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.’” ().