Cited by

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

1129 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. J. D. K., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Albert George McIntosh 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 v. Griller
State of Minnesota v. Cody James Wutzke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
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 v. Katie Marie McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brock Dupree Lam Seawright Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. 4 Griller, (discussing plain-error test).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Gordon Deflorin 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 v. Ronald John Impola Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Vollie Andre Brown, Jr. 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 v. Brandon Joseph Rossbach 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 v. Justin Carlos Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Richard Robert Rodriguez 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 v. Walter Marquetta Humphrey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Matthew William Hedstrom 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 v. Eric Deonta Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Mae Dillon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Tiara Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Shane Scott Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Southern 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 v. Russell Wayne Melanson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 31.02; (applying Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Scot William Yard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Curtis Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Ried Purinton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Donald Allen Ellis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Jean Ryerson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Donald Leland Quick 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 v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Elton James Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Devon Maurice Goode 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 v. Kirk Edward Wolhart Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gregg Michael Dickey 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 v. Oji Konata Markham Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul Omol Arkangelo Uchodu v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017