Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318.

128 citing documents.

State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
(noting that appeals “to the passions and prejudices of the jury by encouraging a conviction based on sympathy for the victim” are improper).
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(“[T]he trial court was justified in noting the multiple forms of sexual abuse as a basis for departure.”).
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See, d *775 386, 389 (Minn.1984); review denied (Minn. Apr.
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
to exist, “ ‘the trial error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object — and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice — should not forfeit his right to a remedy.’ ” ().
Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007
Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007
Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
Thus, although a failure to object to an error at trial ordinarily prevents review of that error on appeal, appellate courts have discretion to consider plain errors affecting substantial rights even if those errors were not objected to at trial.
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
Defendants should be encouraged to object at trial because “[ojbjeetions provide the trial court an opportunity to prevent or cure the effects of alleged prosecutorial misconduct.” , 323 n. 5 (Minn.1996).
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
e plain error, “the trial error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object — and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice— should not forfeit his right to a remedy.” ().
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
Second, MacLennan asserts that the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during the course of its closing argument by referring to his self-defense claim as an “abuse excuse.” It is well-settled that the state has a right to vigorously argue its case, but the state may not denigrate a particular type of defense, Ashby, d at 28 .
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
(denying new trial because of counsel’s “deliberate failure to object contemporaneously, and his decision not to pursue a motion to strike”).
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Jones , , 22 (Minn. 2004); State v. Darveaux , , 49 (Minn. 1982); see also Rairdon v. State , , 325 (Minn. 1996) (denying new trial because of counsel's "deliberate failure to object contemporaneously, and his decision not to pursue a motion to strike").
Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
(-25 (Minn.1996)); State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 253-54 , -42 (1976).
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
We review departures from presumptive sentences “under an abuse of discretion standard, but there must be ‘substantial and compelling circumstances’ in the record to justify a departure.” (); Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 1(4).
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Butala v. State 664 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 2003
Butala v. State 664 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 2003
-25 (Minn.1996); State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 253-54 , -42 (1976).
State v. Watkins 650 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Watkins 650 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
The decision to depart from a presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines is within the district court’s discretion, but when a district court departs from the presumptive sentence, it must articulate “substantial and compelling reasons” justifying the departure, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D
State v. Hearn 647 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Hearn 647 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(finding multiple forms of sexual abuse inflicted on a young child, vulnerability of victim, and particular cruelty constituted severe aggravating circumstances); -32 (Minn.App.1996) (finding multiple penetrations each of three types, allowing victim to lie unc
State v. McIntosh 641 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2002
State v. McIntosh 641 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2002
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001