# State v. Ramey

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · September 14, 2006 · 721 N.W.2d 294

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664272

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Scott Wade RAMEY, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** September 14, 2006
- **Citations:** 721 N.W.2d 294; 2006 Minn. LEXIS 626; 2006 WL 2621644
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Anderson
- **Judges:** Meyer, Paul, Gildea, Anderson, Barry
- **Cited by:** 311 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664272

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “[w]e expect that prosecutors, as well as defense counsel, are aware of our case law proscribing particular conduct as well as the standards of conduct prescribed by the ABA” and stressing impropriety of engaging in “clearly proscribed conduct”
- recognizing that “the majority’s holding represented] a sharp and radical departure — a 180° turn — from our court’s and the United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence as to the burden of persuasion on the third prong of the plain error test”
- stating that, "in the 1980s, while some cases used the Caron standard to analyze unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct, we also applied the plain error doctrine in other cases of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct”
- stating that the state must “show that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury” (quotations omitted)
- stating that the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that the misconduct did not affect substantial rights

## Opinion text

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice
(concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice Gil-dea.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664272. Public record. Not legal advice.