Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rodriguez, 505 N.W.2d 373.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(concluding objecting on grounds of a “legal conclusion” fails to preserve objection on substantive grounds such as hearsay and confrontation clause arguments), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mervel George Jones, III, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mervel George Jones, III, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“An objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And “[a]n objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See State v. Rodriguez , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“An objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jorge Alberto Martinez Reyes, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-50 (Minn. 2018) (stating that forfeited issues are reviewed for plain error); State v. Rodriguez , (providing that “[a]n objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge” and that a defendant does not preserve for appeal an objection made on different grounds than those raised on appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Rodriguez , (affirming particular-vulnerability upward departure based on the murder of an elderly woman with deteriorating physical health), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Jake Anthony Scharber-Pikula, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Accordingly, the objections were sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.” “An objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge.” (holding that an objection on grounds of legal conclusion did not alert district court to hearsay and Confrontation Clause issues), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge.” State v. Rodriguez¸ review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, “[a]n objection must be specific as to the 10 grounds for challenge.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant asserts that he preserved the argument, and his claim is 5 therefore subject to the harmless-error test.2 in support of its contention that appellant is asserting a new theory on appeal, so the claim must be reviewed under the plain-error test.
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(d 802, 803 (Minn. 1982), in which supreme court was satisfied that particular cruelty justified double upward departure when assault continued for about five hours), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
We have held that an upward departure from the presumptive sentence for second-degree felony murder and kidnapping was supported by the particular vulnerability of the victim, an elderly woman with deteriorating health, because her recent hip surgery rendered her “basically immobile.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(propriety of rebuttal evidence “rests almost entirely in the discretion of the trial court”), pet.