Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Smith 674 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2004
State v. Smith 674 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2004
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(applying the plain error rule to unobjected-to jury instructions); (defining plain error as: (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights).
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
(holding that evidence bearing on premeditation includes “the defendant’s words and actions before, during and after the killing”); State v. Griller, *27 (noting that “it seems even more implausible that after killing in self-defense or defense-of-dwelling, one would dismember the body and bury it in one’s backyard”).
State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Winter 668 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Winter 668 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
-41 (Minn.1998); Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
-41 (Minn.1998) The three-prong test for plain error requires that there be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
Because appellant did not move for midtrial severance when these incidents occurred, this court will only review the trial court’s application of the fair determination test if there was “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Roberts 651 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Roberts 651 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(setting out three-prong test).
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
In order to show substantial rights were affected, the defendant bears a “heavy burden” of persuasion to show that “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
740 & n. 7 (Minn.1998) (citing Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Before an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, appellant must meet a three-prong test for plain error: “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” (citation *367 omitted).
State v. Cyrette 636 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Cyrette 636 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001