Supreme Court of Minnesota· 8/23/2007

State v. Reed

Citations

737 N.W.2d 572
2007 Minn. LEXIS 505
2007 WL 2389774

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to play a 911 call for the fourth time
stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”
stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct” (quotation omitted)
determining that the district court reserving ruling on the admissibility of evidence was different from the court ruling on the admissibility of the evidence
explaining that under both harmless-error review and plain-error review, error is not reversible unless it affected defendant’s substantial rights
stating that the appellant, who sought to challenge an alleged ruling by the district court on the admissibility of a prior conviction, “[could not] challenge the district court’s ruling . . . as the court made no such ruling”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Barry

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

37 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.