DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

  • State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
    If we determine that there was error that was plain and that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, we “ ‘then assess [ ] whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’ ” (alterations in original) ().
  • Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    See, (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward based on appellant’s particular cruelty, concealment of the body, lack of remorse, and denial of responsibility and attempt to shift blame); (holding that the aggravat
  • State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    To warrant reversal, “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain;, and (3) the' error must affect substantial rights.”
  • State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    (adopting plain-error analysis set out in Johnson).
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    An error affects substantial rights when “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
  • State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    An appellant bears the “heavy burden” of showing that the error was prejudicial to the degree that “giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the [jury’s] verdict.”
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
    (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “[BJefore an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “[B]efore an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Under that standard, “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
    If these three prongs are met, we “then assess[] whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (noting that for plain error to exist, “the trial error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object — and thereby pr
  • State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
    (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469-70 , 117 S.Ct.
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008