Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State of Minnesota,Respondent v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
re were any trial errors, the jurors’ careful evaluation of the evidence is shown by the split verdicts, and ultimately appellant’s conspiracy defense was extremely implausible in light of all of the evidence presented by the [s]tate.” While the state fails to cite any caselaw to support why we need not address the error
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If these three prongs are met, the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Minn. (1998).
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998), holding modified by Ramey, d at 298-99.
State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Under that test, there must be “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
In most situations, an error affects substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the 10 outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If all three prongs are satisfied, a reviewing court decides whether to address the error to ensure the “fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If these prongs are met, we then determine whether to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Under that standard, we will not reverse unless Harden identifies a plain error that affects his “substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Pierre Pollard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Pierre Pollard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; (noting that an error affects substantial rights when it is “prejudicial and affect[s] the outcome of the case”).
State of Minnesota v. Jiyaad Jamaal Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jiyaad Jamaal Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And an error affects substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
-39, 744 (Minn.1998); 327 (Minn.1998); -55 (Minn.1982).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998); see Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015