Cited by

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

398 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jolene Carmel Goblish Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jolene Carmel Goblish Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see Minn. Stat. § 634.04 (2014) (stating that a conviction may not rely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Smith argues that the deputy’s testimony amounted to plain error.
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citations and quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse B. Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse B. Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If those three elements are established, “we may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harvey Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harvey Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” ( (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1548-49 (1997))).
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
in 2010.” Smith relies on State v. Strommen, which provides that “the state cannot be permitted to deprive a defendant of a fair trial by means of insinuations and innuendoes which plant in the minds of the jury a prejudicial belief in the existence of evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The 6 plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” (internal citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Plain error requires that the appellant show “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The plain error standard requires that the 4 defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Hall, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Hall, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious under current law, (quotation omitted), and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(providing that an accomplice instruction be given “in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice”).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has held that prosecutors misstate the burden of proof when they ask the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, which one makes the most sense.”