Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error affects substantial rights “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
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
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Furthermore, reversal is not mandated if a party satisfies the plain-error test; rather, reversal is only warranted if necessary “‘to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” Frazier, d at 626-27 ().
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chad Loran Siegel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To establish plain error, “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad Loran Siegel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If all three prongs are satisfied, then a reviewing court must decide whether to address the error “to ensure the fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 736, 741 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The third prong is satisfied “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
(citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz 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.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that unobjected-to errors are reviewed under the plain-error test).
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error affects substantial rights if it is “prejudicial and affect[s] the outcome of the case.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by