Cited by

This is typically shown “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey

If the appellant proves these two prongs, the n the burden shifts to the state to “demonstrate lack of prejudice; that is, the misconduct did not affect [the defendant’s] substantial rights.”

See State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006).

“Prosecutors have an affirm ative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial, no matter how strong the evidence of guilt.”

n.6 (Minn. 2016); State v. Ramey

“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious,” and an error is clear or obvious if the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Ramey , -300 (Minn. 2006).

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”

An error by the district court is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

State v. Ramey , -300 (Minn. 2006).

d 294, 299-300 (Minn. 2006).

“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious,” and an error i s clear or obvious if the error “contravenes case law, a rule or a standard of conduct.” d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006 ) (quotation omitted).

See State v. Ramey , (stating that “the district court is in the best position to attempt to remedy the effects of the misconduct, and it should be given this opportunity in the first instance”).

would have had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

(setting forth a “new approach of shifting the burden to the prosecution to show lack of prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct cases” for policy reasons).

An error is plain when it is “clear or obvious,” and an error is clear or obvious when it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

This prong is met if an error “contravenes case law, a rule, or standard of conduct.”

(“On appeal, an unobjected-to error can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error a ffecting substantial rights.”).

An appellate court applies “the plain error doctrine when examining unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct.” 6 (Minn. 2006).

(“before an appellate court reviews unobjected-to trial error, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affects substantial rights.”).

prosecu-torial misconduct.”); (“We expect that prosecutors ...

State v. Ramey , –300 (Minn. 2006).

or a standard of conduct.”

An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a st andard of conduct.”

appeal even if it was not brought to the trial court’s attention.”); State v. Ramey , (“On appeal, an unobjected-to error can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial 12 rights.”).

“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious,” and an error is usually clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).