Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736.

1124 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ira Dell Sholar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Under the plain-error standard, “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
Ricardo Amigon-Vidal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ricardo Amigon-Vidal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ray Maeyaert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error).
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Susan Patrice Long Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Susan Patrice Long Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If the three prongs of the plain-error test are met, an appellate court must then decide whether to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
g the plain-error standard when the defendant failed to object to alleged witness interference and concluding that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated); (plurality opinion) (applying the plain-error standard to the defendant’s witness-interference claim absent objection on due process grounds at trial); (explaining that when a defendant does not object, we have the discretion to consider the unobjected- to error on appeal if it is a plain error affecting substantial rights).
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reviewing unobjected-to errors for plain error).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The third prong of the plain-error test “is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(explaining burden of proof).
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
16 establishes these three prongs, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997))
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016