Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
(stating absent plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights, a trial court does not err when it does not give a warranted jury instruction if the defendant has impliedly or expressly waived that instruction).
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Plain-error involves an analysis of whether there was “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
see Johnson v. U.S., 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
12 An upward sentencing departure requires “substantial and compelling circumstances in the record.”
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
We review departures from presumptive sentences “under an abuse of discretion standard, but there must be ‘substantial and compelling circumstances’ in the record to justify a departure.” (); Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 1(4).
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
Crowsbreast, d at 437 ().
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004