Cited by

“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotations omitted).

Schmeichel has the burden to “demonstrate both that error occurred and that the error was plain.”

(jury instructions); (prosecutorial misconduct).

n.6 (Minn. 2006); -87 (Minn. 2011) (explaining the supreme court’s “inherent judicial authority”).

If we determine a plain error affected the appellant’s substantial rights, then we assess “whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

gave in 5 We note that the supreme court has “le[ft] for another day the question of whether the Caron two-tiered approach should continue to apply to cases involving objected-to prosecutorial misconduct.” n.4 (Minn. 2006).

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

Because Hall did not object to the state’s closing argument, we “review the prosecutor’s statements under a modified plain error analysis.” d 716, 726 (Minn. 2022) (–300, 302 (Minn. 2006)).

“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.’” ().

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

“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious,” which generally “is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

When a defendant fails to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial—as Westrom did—–300 (Minn. 2006), under which “the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that was plain.”

“[I]n cases involving unusually serious prosecutorial misconduct,” appellate courts have “required certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct was harmless before affirming.” –99, 299 n.4 (Minn. 2006) (observing that “some [Minnesota Supreme Court] cases [had] used the Caron standard to analyze unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct,” “conclud[ing] that appellate courts should use the plain error doctrine when examining unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct,” and “leav[ing] for an

“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.’” ().

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