Cited by

“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.” (quotation omi tted).

rebut the improper suggestions.”

d 674, 682 (Minn. 2007).

“An error 5 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 , (quotation[] omitted).

T he prosecutor’s challenge to appellant’s self -defense claim focused on the merits of the claim in that the prosecutor vigorously argued that “retaliation isn’t self -defense.” -83 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that prosecutor’s arguments about defendant’s self-defense claim were not erroneous because prosecutor’s arguments were 5 about merits of claim).

-81 (Minn. 2007) (noting that admission of prior convictions did not prevent defendant from testifying, thereby reducing potential prejudice).

“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were no t affected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the er ror to ensure fairness and th e integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().

d 674, 681 (Minn. 2007) (“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.”).

Cf. Peltier, d at 806 (determining that prosecutorial misconduct did not affect substantial rights, in part, because the misconduct comprised only one page of a 39-page closing argument); (concluding that prosecutor’s misstatements did not affect substantial rights when prosecutor’s improper questions covered less than one page of 64 pages of 3 While the state’s evidence tying Hanson to possession of the shotgun after April 2012 is fa

“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.” (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.” (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.’” ().

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.”

“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.’” ().

“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).

(“[I]t is error for a district court to fail to make a record of its consideration of the Jones factors, though the error is harmless if it is nonetheless clear that it was not an abuse of discretion to admit evidence of the convictions.”).

When considering whether an 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.”

In assessing whether this prong is satisfied, 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.”

(stating that because “the viability of [the defendant’s] self-defense claim turned largely on facts that only he could testify to, .