Cited by

For the state to meet its burden of showing that the statements did not affect Graf’s substantial rights, it must show that there is not “a reasonable likelihood that the error actually impacted the verdict.” McDaniel, d at 749; accord State v. Davis , -83 (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.”).

If the state does not meet its burden, we would then determine whether to address the error “to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

see Pulczinski, d at 356 (“[A]n appellate court may correct the error only when it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”).

See State v. Davis , (stating that one factor in determining whether an error affected a defendant’s substantial rights is “the strength of the evidence against the defendant”).

See, (stating that “[t]he law reflects, and the State concedes, that Fardan’s convictions should merge”); n.1.

"If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, 'the appellate court then assesses 10 whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings."' ().

entencing memorandum called Walker “a violent gang-banging drug-dealer – pure and simple” and “a violent gang-banger who decided to sell methamphetamine for profit.” And at sentencing, the prosecutor added that Walker is “a drug dealer” and “[a]dmitted gang member, who isn’t going to stop committing crime.” Certainly, “the state’s argument is not required to be colorless.” State v. Davis

But we need not determine whether the rebuttal argument was plainly erroneous if the argument did not have a “significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” –82 (Minn. 2007).

“In 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 pervasiveness of the improper suggestion s, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.”

“[W]e 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.” see also State v. Parker

See State v. Davis , (explaining that appellate courts look to “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the imprope r suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions”).

In making this assessment, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, 4 the per vasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Davis

State v. Davis , (Mi nn.

8 an opportunity to (or made efforts) to rebut the improper suggestions.”

See State v. Davis , (concluding that a prosecutor’s improper suggestions were not pervasive where they covered less than one of the 64 pages containing the witness’s testimony).

“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” (quoting Griller, d at 740).

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

“The state has a ri ght to vigorously argue its case” and it may argue that th e “evidence does not support particular defenses.”

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Davis , (quotations omitted).

If the state fails to carry 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).

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

Binding precedent states that where this court finds prosecutorial misconduct, “[i]f the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Davis , see also Peltier, d at 805-06.

In making this determination, courts consider various factors including, but not limited to, whether the defendant had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks, the pervasiveness of the error in proceedings, and the strength of the evidence against defendant, Cao, d at 717.

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

It is error for the district court “to fail to make a record of its consideration of the Jones factors.”

See Peltier, d at 806 (concluding there was no effect on the defendant’s substantial rights when the “incidents of alleged misconduct were isolated, together comprising approximately one page of a 39-page closing argument”); (holding prosecutor’s misconduc t did not affect defendant’s sub stantial rights where misconduct covered one of 64 pages of testimony); 7 (Minn. 2003) (concluding two improper sentences in a closing argument that amounted to over 20 transcribed pages did n

the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, a nd whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Davis, 5 The transcript, by including th e word “indicating” in parenthe ses, suggests that the prosecutor demonstrated the stomping for the jury 15

(holding prosecutor’s misconduct did not affect defendant’s substantial rights where misconduct wa s not pervasive).

(noting that prior convictions have some impeachment value because they allow the jury to see the whole person and better judge the truth of the testimony).

(stating that when determining whether a reasonable likelihood exists that prosecutorial misconduct had a significant effect on the verdict, appellate courts “consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had

“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not af fected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should 6 address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().

rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Davis

In assessing whether there is a reasonable likelihood that prov iding formal Spreigl notice would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdic t, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an op portunity to (or made efforts to ) rebut the improper suggestions.”

An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious,” which is usually shown “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Davis , (quotation omitted) .

In determining whether substan tial rights were affected, 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.”

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

To determine whether the state has met its burden, this court considers “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.”

A criminal defendant’s substantial rights are affected when “there is a reasonable lik elihood that the absence of misconduct would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” - 82 (Minn. 2007).

If the state fails its burden, we must determine “whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

“An error is plain if it is clear or obv ious, and usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” 681 (Minn. 2007) (quotation om itted).