Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action Against Bosman, 901 N.W.2d 917.

86 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Robert James Yernatich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The first step of this test requires the defendant to “prove the existence of an error that is plain.” State v. Parker
State of Minnesota v. Abner Otwoma Momanyi Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Tomak Zain Zarif Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“An error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant e ffect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Parker , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Amil Abdi Yonis Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ryan Larson, Minn. 2020
d 917, 921–22, 926–27 (Minn. 2017) (concluding that comments made by a county attorney at a press conference more than a year before trial did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because the jurors were not aware of the statements).
State of Minnesota v. Eli Samuel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Mario Antonio Burciaga Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Hansen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Hussen Hassan Hussen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Parker , (quotations 5 omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joel Allen Wortman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Thomas Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 294, 297-300 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Parker , -26 (Minn. 2017) (reiterating the standard).
State of Minnesota v. Jerwulu D. Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Dana Dionte Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Desean Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Simon Benjamin Danquah Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A plain error affects substantial rights when “it was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case, ” meaning “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jur y’s verdict.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To evaluate the effect on substantial rights, we consider various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” State v. Parker , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lannon Lavar Burdunice Minn. Ct. App. 2019
David Wayne Benolt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Lamar Darcell Coffee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
State v. Parker , , 926 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Deangelo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 294, 297-300 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Parker , -26 (Minn. 2017) (reiterating the standard).
State of Minnesota v. Blayon Lawrence Yuoh Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when “it was pre judicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Parker , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Clifford Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In determining whether the misconduc t affected appellant’s substan tial rights, we consider various factors, including: “(1) the strength of the evidence against [the defendant]; (2) the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct; and (3) whether [the defendant] had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” Peltier, d at 805-06
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lovell Arrington Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Edward Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A plain error affects a 6 defendant’s substantial rights if it was prejudicial and affect ed the outcome of the case.” State v. Parker , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cyrus Noel Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g., State v. Parker , (defendant received sentence of 480 months for intentional second-degree murder); -48 (Minn. 2012) (defendant received sentence of 406 months for intentional second-degree murder); -81 (Minn. App. 2009) (defendant received sen
State of Minnesota v. Duane Griffin Gauna Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If the state fails to show that the error did not affect substantial rights, then we determine if the error should be addressed to “ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Ilyes Omar Ibrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Parker , , 926 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Thomas Bandow Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Parker , (affirming a district court’s upward departure based on zone of privacy where the defendant shot t he victim in the victim’s home).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Under this modified test, the defendant has the burden to prove the existence of an error that is plain.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Mock Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Pedro Ayala-Leyva Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Guidelines 4 (2010); n.3 (Minn. 2017) (determining departure duration from top of presumptive sentencing range).
State of Minnesota v. Kell Anthony Bean Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If the defendant establishes error that is plain, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Thomas Rose Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Under this modified test, the defendant has the burden to prove the existence of an error that is plain.”