Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Miera, 417 N.W.2d 643.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-48 (Minn. 1988); State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28, -01 (1974), abrogated on other grounds by Ramey, d at 297-99.
-
State v. Ramey
721 N.W.2d 294
Minn. 2006
Some examples are: eliciting inadmissible evidence, -54 (Minn.1994); alluding in argument to the defendant’s exercise of the right not to testify, -51 (Minn.1997), or to the defendant’s failure to call witnesses, misstating the presumption of innocence, Salitros, d at 818 , or the burden of proof, interjecting the prosecutor’s personal opinion about the veracity of witnesses, inflaming the passions and
-
State v. Johnson
672 N.W.2d 235
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(“[I]t is questionable whether the prosecutor committed any misconduct, since the statement related to a matter on which defendant had the burden of proof.”).
- State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-
State v. Lory
559 N.W.2d 425
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(indicating that trial counsel should object or seek curative instruction from judge to preserve issue for appeal) ().
-
Rairdon v. State
557 N.W.2d 318
Minn. 1996
31.02 (1984); (reviewing for plain errors seriously affecting substantial rights, and citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 16-17 n. 14, 105 S.Ct.
-
In Re the Welfare of B.M.L.
553 N.W.2d 113
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 16 n. 14, 105 S.Ct.
-
State v. Grayson
546 N.W.2d 731
Minn. 1996
(test is “whether the improper comment likely played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict”).
-
State v. Bashaw
531 N.W.2d 203
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(affirmative defense requires defendant to produce evi *207 dence raising defense and to prove defense by preponderance of evidence); (when defendant is charged with violation of Minn.Stat.
-
State v. Wiskow
501 N.W.2d 657
Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(defining plain error is that which “seriously affects substantial rights and * * * has unfair prejudicial impact on the jury’s deliberations.”) Appellant, however, challenged the admission of evidence regarding the Playboy incident.
-
State v. Bright
471 N.W.2d 708
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(matters not objected to at trial are generally waived).
- State v. Glidden 455 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1990
- State v. Gore 451 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1990
- State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
Matter of Welfare of Jjh
446 N.W.2d 680
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
berg, d at 513 , noting, while holding that noncompliance with the misdemeanor trial rule does not require final dismissal, that in addition to a provision in the rule permitting indefinite delay for good cause, the rule omits a stated consequence for noncompliance; McIntosh, d at 119 (same observation); rev’d on other grounds, Comment, Minn.R.Crim.P.
- State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
- State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Shamp 427 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1988