Cited by

Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006) (citations and quotations omitted).

Prosecutorial Misconduct “[A]ppellate courts should use the plain error doctrine when examining unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct.” State v. Ramey

State v. Ramey , 0 (Minn. 2006).

abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ramey , 9 (Minn. 2006).

[or it] contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” .

Generally, an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

The dissent also argues that previously we have been willing to overrule our standards of review, *599 (Minn. 2006)

“An error is plain if it was ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’” d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006) (quot ation omitted).

An error is plain if it is “clear” or “obvious,” which is typically established “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (citation omitted).

d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

P. 31.02; State v. Ramey , .

The state must show “there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant e ffect on the verdict of the jury.” (quotati ons omitted).

An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey , 02 (Minn. 2006).

(stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”).

For unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct, this court applies a modified plain-error test; once misconduct that “reaches the level of plain or obvious error” is established, the prosecution bears “the burden of demonstrating that its misconduct did not prejudice the defendant’s substantial rights.” -300 (Minn. 2006).

“An error is ‘plain’ if it was ‘clear’ or ‘obvious,’ ” (citation omitted), which requires that “the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,” d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

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