Cited by

When deciding whether an alleged plain error affected a defendant’s substantial rights, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” –82 (Minn. 2007).

To assess the impact of the misconduct on the jury’s verdict, we “consider the strength of the evidence against the [appellant], the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the [appellant] had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

see also State v. Leutschaft , 6, 426 (Minn. App. 2009) (holding that a prosecutor’s unsubstantiated suggestion that the defendant tailored his trial testimony violates the defendant’s confrontation and due - process rights, but questions about tailoring may be proper if the

Prosecutorial misconduct affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, the appellate court then assesses 19 whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

Prosecutorial misconduct affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” - 82 (Minn. 2007).

“Prosecutorial misconduct affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

8 To determine whether the state has met its burden, appellate courts consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” -82 (Minn. 2007) .

Prosecutorial misconduct affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

“Prosecutorial misconduct affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

Whether the state met its burden depends on “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

“Prosecutorial misconduct affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

12 opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” -06 (Minn. 2016) ().

Prosecutorial misconduct affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

“Prosecutorial misconduct affe cts substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” –82 (Minn. 2007).

To determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor ’s error had a significant effect on the verdict, we “consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

Prosecutorial misconduct affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” - 82 (Minn. 2007).

In making that determination, we consider several factors such as “the strength of the evidence” against Price, “the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions,” and whether Price “had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

If both parties meet their burden, we consider reversing if addressing the error is necessary “to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

5 (addressing plain-error review of prosecutorial misconduct and explaining that, “[i]n assessing whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict, we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pe

These factors include “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

Whether the state met its burden depends on “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” -82 (Minn. 2007).

ermine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s error had a significant effect on the verdict, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether 14 the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

If the defendant establishes an error that is plain and the state does 10 not meet its burden, “the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted); (“[A]n appellate court may correct the error only when it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”).

In assessing whether appellant’s substantial rights were affected, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the i mproper suggestions.” (citations omitted) .

In State v. Davis, the supreme court determined that the prosecuting attorney’s use of “preposterous” to describe a defendant’s self-defense testimony was “colorful” and “did not constitute error.” -83 (Minn. 2007).

“The state has a right to vigorously argue its case” and its argument “is not required to be colorless.” State v. Davis

In determining whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct would have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”