Cited by

(explaining, in a criminal trial context, that the contemporaneous-objection requirement encourages trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around).

We review claims of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct under a modified plain -error standard, considering whether there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.”

d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

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

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

An error is plain if it 6 “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

“[U]nobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights.”

“Ordinarily, [a party’s] failure to object to an error at trial forfeits appellate review.”

(stating when defendant fails to object at trial, they generally forfeit consideration of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal, but reviewing court can still address the misconduct under the plain-error doctrine).

Claims of unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed pursuant to a modified-plain-error standard which first requires the defendant to demonstrate “that the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes an error that is plain,” and then the burden shifts “to the state to demonstrate lack of prejudice.”

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.”

We review such claims under a modified plain-error standard, considering whether there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.”

“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.’” d 782, 787 (Minn. 2017) ().

8 (Minn. 2016); (extending the plain-error doctrine to unobjected -to claims of prosecutorial misconduct).

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

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

Claims of unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed pursuant to a modified-plain-error standard which first requires the defendant to demonstrate “that the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes an error that is plain,” then the burden shifts to the state “to demonstrate lack of prejudice.”

d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

Under this test, the defendant must first demonstrate “that the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes an error that is plain .” State v. Ramey , d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006) .

Claims of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct are revi ewed pursuant to a modified-plain-error standard which first requi res the defendant to demonstrate “that the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes an error that is plain,” then the burde n shifts to the state “to demonstrate lack of prejudice.”

Assuming without deciding that the first two factors have been met, (an error is plain when it “contravenes case la w, a rule, or a standard of conduct”), we conclude that the third factor has not been sa tisfied for two reasons.

Though the Caron test has been called into question, d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006), if the alleged prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, then there is no need to address the standard for less serious misconduct.