Cited by

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

1129 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Jose Abrego Minn. Ct. App. 2024
P. 31.01 (“Any error that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”); State v. Griller , ( stating that an error affects substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case”).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Donald Dequai Crenshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
However, even when there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, this court has “discretion to consider [the] issue on appeal if it is plain error affecting substantial rights.” Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998)).
State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Dwayne Thurston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Dwayne Thurston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court ordinarily reviews an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test[,]” under which “a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 31.02; (determining that although the appellant “did not object to the jury instructions at trial, [appellate courts] have the discretion to consider [the] issue on appeal if it is plain error affecting substantial rights”).
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Joel Dow Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Michael Romeo Geraci Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Woodrow West Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Chanan El Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing State v. Griller
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Darrick Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2023
If these three prongs are met, the remaining question is whether we must “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Regina Marie White Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Thomas Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that the court had “discretion” to review unobjected-to jury instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Rosas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Stephen Carl Allwine, Minn. 2023
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Dennis Bromen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
( “The third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Edbin Jose Coreas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Carolina Zarate Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Jacob Bonin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) .
Kristopher Lee Roybal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Saldana Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Kenyatta Devine Buckles Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Abdirizak M. Mohamud Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Alexander James Mueller Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Raytavien Rashad Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If all three prongs of the plain- error test are satisfied, we assess “whether the error should be add ressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Keith Allen Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But if all three prongs are satisfied, we then decide whether to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeramy John Wharton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Albert Schally Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Plain error affects substantial rights “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Scott Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Pao Choua Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
404(b)(1), it may be admitted to provide the context for a police encounter or investigation, Ali, d at 249 ().
State of Minnesota v. Zakarie Farah Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If all three prongs of the plain-error test are satisfied, the reviewing court then decides “whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Dawkins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Richard James Graf Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Gail Lynn Schauer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Donald Knott Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Under the plain-error standard, a defendant must establish “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Adam Frederick King Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Christopher Gusciora Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(under plain-error standard, appellant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects appellant’s substantial rights).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by