Cited by

If these three elements are met, we must then consid er “whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

Generally, the test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is whether 4 she “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (quotation omitted).

on appeal even if it was not brought to the trial court’s attention.”); –84 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that under both harmless-error review and plain-error review, error is not reversible unless it affected defendant’s substantial rights).

Generally, the test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is whether she “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (quotation omitted).

This case resembles State v. Reed, a case in which the supreme court reasoned that the district court did not abuse its discretion by replaying a 9-1-1 recording during jury deliberations because “at worst, the replaying of the tape allowed the jury to rehear what it had already heard.” (quotation omitted).

Corroborative 7 evidence must “affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct” (quotation omitted)).

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

“[W]here a district court fails to give a required accomplice corroboration instruction and the defendant does not object, an appellate court must apply the plain error[3] analysis.” n.4 (Minn. 2007).

n.4 (Minn. 2007) (“[W]here a district court fails to give a required accomplice corroboration instruction and the defendant does not object, an appellate court must apply the plain error analysis.”); (rejecting view that district court, sua sponte, should ha

(stating that an error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”).

(“The ‘affects substantial rights’ language of the third plain error factor is the same language used to define harmless error.”).

Plain error exists if the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

Boushee bears the burden of establishing that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation marks omitted).

Rather, corroborative evidence need only “affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial 5 degree.” (quotation omitted).

Typically, a plain-error determination requires a showing that the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

(concluding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to play a 911 call for the fourth time).

“[A]n error affects substantial rights where there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

583-84 n. 4 (Minn.2007).