Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward 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. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Only if all three prongs of the test are met do we then consider whether to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reviewing for plain error when appellant did not object to jury instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Armstrong, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Armstrong, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Id.; (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of events that triggered an investigation and excavation of the defendant’s backyard as “context for an investigation”); -57 (Minn. 1984) (upholding admission of the defendant’s
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Robert Flynn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
(citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)).
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Fallin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Fallin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Substantial rights are affected if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Lee Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant bears the burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights, meaning that the admission of other-crimes evidence without any limiting instruction “was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Lee Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[B]efore an appellate court reviews an un-objected to error, there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”).
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
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
A reversal is not required to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings, however, if granting a defendant a new trial would be an “exercise in futility.”
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” ( (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1548-49 (1997))).
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The third prong, requiring that the error affect substantial rights, is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by