Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d 681.

399 citing documents.

State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Artes White Minn. Ct. App. 2019
but his reliance is misplaced.
State of Minnesota v. Elwin Louis Klimek Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A defendant’s substantial rights are affected when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error subst antially affected the verdict.”
Dane Joseph Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Joe Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Id.; see State v. Strommen , -90 (Minn. 2002) (noting that district court’s failure to instruct on accomplice was error).
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Kendall Duncan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Eliciting an officer’s testimony t hat he knows the defendant from prior contacts is error if the defendant’s identity is not an issue in the case.” (emphasis added) (citin g ), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Darsche Chaudaun Wharry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
On plain-error review, the defendant bears the burden to show: “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” State v. Strommen
State of Minnesota v. LC Monroe Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A defendant’s substantial rights are affected when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Duane John BlackBull Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If this test is met, “we may correct the error only if it seriously affect s the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Marshall Andrew Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
689-90 (Minn. 2002 ) (requiring that jury be ac curately instructed on abandonment when store’s clerk testified that defendant had told co-robber who had been trying to open the cash register, “Come on.
State of Minnesota v. Angel Pablo Torres, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Under the plain-e rror test, Torres bears the bur den to show an “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Marcell Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strommen , , 686 (Minn. 2002) (citing State v. Griller , , 740 (Minn. 1998) ).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Michael Kuchenbecker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Abraham Deng Woi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
to argue that the prosecutor committed misconduct by reduc ing the entire case to two versions and directing the jury to believe one or the other.
State of Minnesota v. Lor Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error affects substantial rights “if ther e is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Devon Larry Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Berdell Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Passon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Humberto Acevedo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,” State v. Ramey , d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Grayling Tweed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Donyell Tyrone Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The plain error standard requires that the [appellant] show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Ilyes Omar Ibrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ruben Lucero Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, State v. Strommen , d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002), and an error is clear or o bvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. J. D. K., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” State v. Strommen
State of Minnesota v. Albert George McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing State v. Strommen , ).
State of Minnesota v. Cody James Wutzke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” State v. Strommen , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error affects s ubstantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002).
Nathan Thomas Tow-Arnett v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-16 (Minn. 2010); d 681, 689-90 (Minn. 2002) .
State of Minnesota v. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Vollie Andre Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Prince Lashone Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Corbine Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Francis Bragg Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that “the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he misstated the state’s burden of proof and when he misstated the law on the issue of abandonment”).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Westley Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Mae Dillon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
State of Minnesota v. Shane Scott Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Russell Wayne Melanson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if [(4)] it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding s.” State v. Strommen , ( (quotation omitted) ).
State of Minnesota v. Dejonte Antwon Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, (concluding that “the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he misstated the state’s burden of proof and when he misstated the law on the issue of abandonment ”).
State of Minnesota v. James Willard Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2017
in which the prosecutor urged the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, which one makes the most sense.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Curtis Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Donald Allen Ellis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” (citing Griller, d at 740).
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Tavon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Saul Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Strommen , Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).