consider claim in Minnesota

2024A court may consider an otherwise Knaffla-barred claim “if (1) the defendant presents a novel legal issue or (2) the interests of justice require the court to consider the claim.” Hooper, 838 N.W.2d at 787 (quotation omitted).

2017A court may consider an otherwise Knaffla-barred claim if “(1) the defendant presents a novel legal issue or (2) the interests of justice require the court to consider the claim.” Hooper, 838 N.W.2d at 787 (quotation omitted).

2002As a general rule, if defense counsel fails to object to an error at trial, the defendant “is deemed to have forfeited his right to have this court consider that error on appeal.” State v. Malaski, 330 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Minn.1983).

2000“The general rule is that if defense counsel fails to object to error at trial, the defendant * * * is deemed to have forfeited his right to have this court consider that error on appeal.” State v. Malaski, 330 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Minn.1983). , However, even when there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, this court has the discretion to consider on appeal whether there was plain error affecting substantial .rights.

2024But Knaffla does not bar a postconviction claim “if (1) the defendant presents a novel legal issue or (2) the interests of justice require the court to consider the claim.” Buckingham, 799 N.W.2d at 231 .

2016“A claim is not Knaffla-barred, however, if (1) the defendant presents a novel legal issue or (2) the interests of justice require the court to consider the claim.” Id.

2012Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 51.04(b) permits a court to consider an error in a jury instruction to which no objection was made only if the error is “a plain error ... affecting substantial rights.” In Griller , we adopted in criminal cases the Supreme Court’s test for plain error, under which an unobjected-to error is subject to appellate review only if: (1) there is an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects a party’s substantial rights. 583 N.W.2d at 736 (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)).

2000See State v. *319 Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998); Minn. R.Crim.

2016“To be reviewed in the interests of 1 “[W]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). 4 justice, a claim must have merit and be asserted without deliberate or inexcusable delay.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2016“To be reviewed in the interests of 1 “[W]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). 4 justice, a claim must have merit and be asserted without deliberate or inexcusable delay.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2014See Johnson v. State, 673 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Minn.2004) (“One purpose of this rule is to encourage the development of a factual basis for claims at the district court level.”).

2014“The second exception may be applied if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” White v. State, 711 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

2011See Wright v. State, 765 N.W.2d 85, 90 (Minn.2009).

1985Upon review of an order granting summary judgment, this court must “determine (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium, 281 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn.1979).