Cited by

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

398 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
An error affects substantial rights if there is a “reasonable likelihood” that it “substantially affected the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because appellant did not argue this to the district court, our standard of review is plain error.2 (holding that plain error is error that violated a law, rule, or standard of conduct); (setting out plain-error criteria as (1) an error (2) that is plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and noting that, if these criteria are met, the error will be corrected only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings).
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Valinski also relies on State v. Strommen, in which the supreme court considered “testimony elicited from the arresting officer that he knew Strommen on a first-name basis and from ‘prior contacts and incidents.’”
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
A plain error is one that is clear or obvious, and we have noted that such an error usually “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Ramey, d at 302 .
State v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
This standard requires that the defendant demonstrate: “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
District “courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.”
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
(); see Minn. Stat. § 634.04 (2010) (prohibiting convictions based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony).
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
(explaining that if a defen *634 dant fails to object to the admission of evidence at trial, the admission of evidence is reviewed for plain error).
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
3 We have held that “trial courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.” ().
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
An error is plain “if it was ‘clear’ and ‘obvious.’ ” ().
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Under this standard, appellant must establish that there was “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009