Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
In doing so, for criminal cases: “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
7 An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
If those three prongs are satisfied, we then assess “whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).
Scott v. State 788 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2010
Scott v. State 788 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2010
*504 742 (Minn.1998) (declining to reverse the defendant’s conviction despite the undisputed plain error in the jury instructions).
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
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.” (footnote omitted).
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
(declining to reverse the defendant’s conviction despite the undisputed plain error in the jury instructions).
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
P. 31.02 (stating that appellate court may consider plain error affecting substantial rights even if such error was not raised before district court); (holding that appellate court has discretion to consider an error not objected to if such error is plain and affects substantial rights).
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010