Cited by

(establishing that the defendant must establish (1) error and (2) that the error w as plain, and if established, that (3) the burden then shifts to the state to show that the m isconduct did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights).2 On appeal, Keller argues that the prosecutor committed

“Ordinarily, the defendant’s failure to object to an error at trial forfeits appellate consideration of the issue.”

And because it was an error that contravenes well -established case law, the error was plain.

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

A plain error is typically shown “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

at 787 (d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006)).

Under the plain-error standard, a defendant must show t hat there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” ; (stating that the defendant has the burden of showing that each of the three prongs is satisfied).

Such error is plain if it is “clear” or “obvious,” which is usually “shown if the error contravenes caselaw, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

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

State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

A plain error is one that is “clear” or “obvious,” and “contrav enes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation marks omitted).

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,” State v. Ramey , d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

State v. Ramey , 2 (Minn. 2006).

Generally, an error is plain if it “cont ravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey

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

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, State v. Strommen , d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002), and an error is clear or o bvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”

Chughtai did not object at trial to the use of the term “domestic abuse.” “Ordinarily, the defendant’s failure to object to an error at trial forfeits appellate consideration of the issue.”

Generally, such an error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

Caldwell v. State , n.6 (Minn. 2016); State v. Ramey , d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

The burden is on the state.” Generally, prosecutors may not allude “in argument to the defendant’s exercise of the right not to testify.”

A plain error is one that is “clear” or 14 “obvious” and “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

He must establish that the error is plain because it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” See State v. Ramey

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

State v. Ramey , 7 (Minn. 2006).

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and “[u]sually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”