Cited by

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

1124 citing documents.

State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Myhre , , 804 (Minn. 2016) (citing State v. Griller , , 740 (Minn. 1998) ).
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Griller , , 741 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. 4 Griller, (discussing plain-error test).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 31.02; (holding that an appellate court has discretion to consider an error not objected to if such error is plain and affects substantial rights).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Griller , , 741 (Minn. 1998) (stating that a plain error affects a defendant's substantial rights "if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Griller , , 740 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Before 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error 7 affects the defendant’s substantial rights when the error, “was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 31.02; (applying Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
If we determine the appellant has met each prong, we must then decide whether addressing the 4 plain error is necessary to “ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
ding a letter sent to the police department that trigge red the investigation or the content of police interviews with neighbors, even though the evidence contained negative information about the defendant, because the evidence “provided the jury with the context 5 necessary to explain how the investigation against [the defendant] began and why the police were excavating [h is] backyard.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
A plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if it “was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul Omol Arkangelo Uchodu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hazley 901 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hazley 901 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The third element is satisfied if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error “had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017