DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Van Buren v. State, 556 N.W.2d 548.

74 citing documents.

  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    However, in Van Bu-rén, the prosecutor had “intentionally elicited vouching testimony during trial.”
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Schneider 597 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Schneider 597 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Patterson 587 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Patterson 587 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lane 582 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Smith 582 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Smith 582 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1998
    The test for determining plain error is whether there was * * * a reasonable likelihood that any error substantially affected the verdict.” (citations and internal quotation omitted); see also Minn. R.Crim.
  • State v. Lane 582 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1998
    “However, * * * this court will consider plain error affecting substantial rights if the error had the effect of denying the defendant a fair trial.”
  • State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Patterson 577 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Patterson 577 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    See, (reversing trial court’s admission of testimony that others believed victim’s reports of sexual assaults).
  • State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
    But a defendant may still obtain appellate review, even though the defendant failed to object at trial, if the error was a “plain error affecting substantial rights” and if "the error had the effect of denying the defendant a fair trial.”
  • King v. State 562 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1997
  • King v. State 562 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1997
    “Generally, failure to object to evidence at trial constitutes waiver of those issues on appeal.”