Cited by

P. 31.02; State v. Manthey

“In the absence of an objection, we may review the admission of evidence for plain error.” State v. Manthey , (citing Minn. R. Crim.

See State v. Manthey , (noting that unobjected -to hearsay is particularly difficul t to deem inadmissible on plain-error review due to the many hearsay exceptions and the lack of a clear ruling on the issue at trial).

and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant ’s failure to object -and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice-should not forfeit his right to a remedy.”

See State v. Manthey , (stating that “[t]he complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial”).

Our supreme court has stated that the “complexity and subtl ety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial.”

(noting that “[t]he complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial” because “[i]n the absence of an objection, the state [is] not given the opportunity to establish that so

Establishing plain error on hearsay grounds is particularly difficult because “[t]he number and variety of exceptions to the hearsay exclusion make objections to such testimony particularly import ant to the creation of a record of the trial court’s decision-making process in either admitting or excluding a given statement.”

(holding that failure to act sua sponte to objectionable testimony was not plain error).

The re are three prongs for a successful Confrontation Clause claim: (1) the statement at iss ue was testimonial, (2) the court’s decision-making process in either admitting or excludin g a given statement.”

State v. Matthews , , 633 (Minn. 2011) (articulating the harmless-error test) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Manthey , , 506 (Minn. 2006) (finding that there was no abuse of discretion by district court's refusal to grant a mistrial because there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred).

See State v. Budreau , -06 (Minn. 2006).

See State v. Tscheu , -64 (Minn. 2008) (applying plain-error test to Confrontation Clause issue); State v. Manthey , d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006) (applying plain-error test to hearsay question).

(“In the absence of an objecti on, we may review the admission of evidence for plain error.”).

d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he number a nd variety of exceptions to the hearsay exclusion make objections to such tes timony particularly important to the creation of a record of the trial court’s deci sion-making process in either admitting or excluding a given statement.”

objections to such testimony [are] particularly important to the creation of a record of the [district] court’s decision-making process in either admitting or excluding a given statement.” d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006).

See State v. Manthey , , 506 (Minn. 2006) (explaining that "references to prior incarceration of a defendant can be unfairly prejudicial").

However, “[i]n the absence of an objection, [an appella te court] may review the admission of evidence for plain error.” State v. Manthey , (citing Minn. R. Crim.

However, “[i]n the absence of an objection, [an app ellate court] may review the ad mission of evidence for plain error.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

“ [T]he state has an obligation to caution its witnesses against making prejudicial testimony.”

The plain- error standard “requires the defendant to show (1) error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

“A mistrial should not be granted unless there is a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event 5 that prompted the motion had not occurred.” State v. Manthey , (quotation omitted).

“The complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full 6 discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial.”

“The plain error standard requires the defendant to show (1) erro r (2) that was plain and (3) th at affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Manthey , (Mi nn.

d 498, 506 (Minn. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (stating a mistrial should not be granted “unless there is a reasona ble probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred”).

The plain-error standard “requires the defendant to show (1) error (2 ) that was plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”