Cited by

d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

The American Bar Association (ABA) has established standards of conduct for prosecutors, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated, “We expect that prosecutors, as well as defense counsel, are aware of our case law proscribing particular conduct as well as the standards of conduct prescribed by the ABA.” State v. Ramey , (discussing the ABA standards for prosecutors and defense counsel).

see also State v. Smith , (“When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine gene rally precludes appellate relief.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); –79 (Minn. 2015).

“Prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial ” and are obliged “to guard the rights of the accused.” (quotation omitted).

7 Because eliciting plainly inadmissible testimony may constitute prosecutorial misconduct, see State v. Fields , the modified plain-error test therefore applies

( acknowledging that the supreme court’s power to reverse “prophylactically or in the interests of justice” comes from its power to supervise trial courts (quotation omitted)); n.6 (Minn. 2006) (stating that the court of appeals does not exercise supervisory powers that are reserved for the supreme court).

If the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts, and the state must show “that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” Id.

(citing State v. Ramey , ).

“An error is plain if it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious’” by “‘contraven[ing] case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’” State v. Webster , (d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and an error is clear or obvious if it “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.”

See Mosley , d at 801 (-300 (Minn. 2006)).

See, n.6 (Minn. 2006); n.8 (Minn. App. 2019), review denied (Minn. Apr.

State v. Ramey , -99 (Minn. 2006).

State v. Ramey , n.6 (Minn. 2006).