Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433.

191 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
If those three prongs are met, we consider whether the error must be addressed to ensure the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 , 117 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
When these three requirements are 6 met, “we may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (alteration in original) ( (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Elvis Joko Porte Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elvis Joko Porte Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 433, 437 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
If the defendant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error test, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[O]nly if all three prongs of the plain error rule are met will a court order a new trial and then only if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If all three prongs are met, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997)).
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
If the appellant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error doctrine, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affeet[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
If the appellant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error doctrine, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997))
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because the district court’s erroneous instructions did not require jurors to determine on which date the single-meeting element occurred, this is not a scenario where different jurors may have been “persuaded by different pieces of evidence even when they agree upon the bottom line.” (quotation omitted) (holding no unanimity problem where past pattern of domestic abuse was preliminary factual element and did not require jurors to unanimously agree on individual acts of domestic abuse that compr
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
If the first three prongs of the plain-error standard are met, we then assess whether reversal is required to ensure “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citation omitted); (citing Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
: The grouping of past acts of domestic abuse as a preliminary factual element of domestic abuse homicide, which underlies the verdict, is in no way an irrational or unfair definition of domestic abuse homicide, nor are those acts so inherently separate as to present a due process issue as to jury unanimity
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State *788 v. Crowsbreast
State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
Domestic abuse is defined as “an act that constitutes one of several forms of assault, criminal sexual conduct, terroristic threats, or similar acts, and is committed against a household or family member.” (citing Minn.Stat.
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
If a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence at trial, we may review the district court’s decision if “it implicates a plain error affecting substantial rights.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by