Cited by

“For objected-to prosecutorial misconduct, [courts] have utilized a harmless error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”

Allegations of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under a modified plain-error test, d 294, 299 (Minn. 2006) , while any objected-to prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed for harmless error

“For objected-to prosecutorial misconduct, we have utilized a harmless error test, the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”

d 48, 54 (Minn. 2024) (evidence); (prosecutorial misconduct).

Appellate courts must first determine “whether or not there was an objection at trial to the claimed misconduct.” -94 (Minn. 2007) (determining that “the prosecutor’s conduct was improper” and applying a harmless-error analysis).

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

Id.; (concluding that, because prosecutor’s objectionable question to detective was brief and did not pertain to central issues at trial, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Bauer, d at 472 (concluding that, because juries are presumed to abide by instructions to disregard statements

Plain error can be shown in a prosecutor’s action or statement that clearly “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

& n.8 (Minn. 2007).2 The trial record shows that the prosecutor sought testimony about a prior shooting to establish Woodard’s motive for shooting Divittin Hoskins.

See State v. Wren , (finding th at misconduct spanning three pages in a 70-page closing argument did not affect defendant’s substantial rights).

State v. Wren , 3 (Minn. 2007).

A. Objected-to misconduct When reviewing objected -to prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts utilize a harmless-error test—known as the Caron test—“the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.”

(stating that whether a defendant countered the misconduct is one factor relevant to the harmless- error-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard).

But, “[t]he fact that the prospective juror is a member of a racial minority, alone, does not raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.”

Factors relevant to this determination include “how 9 the improper evidence was presented, whether the state emphasized it during trial, whether the evidence was highly persuasive or circumstantial, and whether the defendant countered it.”

(applying the Caulfield factors in the context of prosecutorial misconduct).

See State v. Wren , (utilizing higher standard).

394 (Minn. 2007) (applying the factors in Caulfield in the context of prosecutorial misconduct).

We apply a two -tiered harmless-error test for objected -to prosecutorial misconduct, “the application of which varies based on the severity of the misconduct.” -390 (Minn. 2007).

State v. Wren , , 388 (Minn. 2007).

at 128, d at 200; n.9 (Minn. 2007) (elaborating on two-tiered approach).

See State v. Wren , (quotation omitted) (explaining that error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”).

at 128, d at 200-01; n.9 (Minn. 2007).

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

pate challenges to witness credibility); (noting the probative value of the evidence); (notin g the context of the evidence and the overall weight of evidence against the defendant); 5 (Minn. 2009) (noting the scope of the state’s questions); (noti ng witness credibility); McArthur, d at 52 (noting the broader context of evidence, the district court’s reasoning, and the acceptable responses to cross-examination).

An error is plain “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Wren , (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has noted that when “the prosecutor invited the jurors to view the entire occurrence as ‘involving three young black males in the hood in North Minneapolis,’ a world wholly outside their own,” the remark “ask[ed] the jury to apply racial and socio-economic considerations that would deny a defendant a fair trial.” (quoting State v. Ray , d 736, 747 (Minn. 2003)).

In State v. Wren, the Minnesota Supreme Court outlined a number of factors for consideration when determining whether error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, including “how the improper evidence was presented, whether the state emphasized it during the trial, whether the evidence was highly persuasive or circumstantial, and whether the defendant countered it.”