Cited by

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

1129 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Jo Huntington Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. James Obonyo Onuko Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Richard Theodore Knoll Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 736, 741 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Earl Jay Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Randy Scott Bennett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. John Melvin Karnes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If these three prongs ar e satisfied, the appellate court may then determine “whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Deon Dell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Laura Cerda Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To meet this requirement, Cerda must show there is a “reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eli Samuel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Odell NMN Branson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lynn Neitzel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
An appellant’s substantial rights are affected “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (footnote omitted) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Raynold Sleen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Robert Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Sandra Kay Kouba Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Wayne Brownbull, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Danny Lamont Weekly Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Alexander Schill, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ethan James Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019
P. 31.02; State v. Griller, 5
State of Minnesota v. Jon Marvin Manypenny Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under the plain-error standard of review, “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Edward Gary Kowalzyk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Duane Skolte Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
Jose Angel Trevino v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ayanna Laverne Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Griller , d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Bradly James Haddock Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Travares Ladell Cyrus Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Darryl Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellant’s substantial rights are affected “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (footnote omitted) (quotation omitted).
Leonard Connell Brown, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Thomas Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[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 of Minnesota v. Antonio Rashod Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Griller , (describing plain-error test for evaluating an assertion of error not raised before the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2 We 1 Appellant’s argument that his guilt can be based only on his intent to commit the crime of theft because that is how the district court instructed the jury is based on a false premise.
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jovanny Masani Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Alonzo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gerald James Risk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at one point had said that you showed them child pornography on your phone?” 10 Appellant did not object to the prosecutor’s questions or the testimony elicited.1 “[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 of Minnesota v. Antonio Fransion Jenkins, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Brian Ven Vangrevenhof Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Charles Earl Strother Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Trajion Terrance Conner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Laurie Ann McIntyre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The third prong, requiring that the error affect substantial rights, is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gellis Lee Walton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Id.; (discussing plain-error test).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Victor Ciriaco-Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Damon Ray Garnett Minn. Ct. App. 2019
As the district court correctly noted, “[e]vidence is admissibl e to give jurors the context for an investigation.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Terrell Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Foster Cole Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Lavell Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2019