Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To satisfy the third prong, a defendant bears a “heavy burden” of persuasion to show that “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Devens, d at 258 (declining to extend the castle doctrine to the hallway of defendant’s apartment building); (holding that the home where the incident occurred was “indeed [the] place of abode” for the defendant because he owned the house, lived there and in one other home “depending on where he was needed,” and also because his Minnesota identification card listed the home as his address).
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Humphrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Ali Moallin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that failure to object to the instructions results in plain-error review).
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Humphrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that in the case of unobjected-to error, a defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was plain error that affects his substantial rights and that the error must be addressed to ensure the fairness and integrity of the proceedings).
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Ali Moallin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.”
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
As with the first two plain-error requirements, 6 Evans bears the burden of persuasion on the third prong, which is a “heavy burden.”
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If Everett did not object, we would review the jury instructions for plain error and ask whether the error affected substantial rights in that it “was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” -41 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lue Yang, Appellant.State of Minnesota v. Lue Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Dotterweich Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Dotterweich Minn. Ct. App. 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by