Cited by

“The party asserting plain error has the burden of establishing all three elements.” State v. 5 Hollins

“An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is conclusively resolved.” (quotation omitted).

“The party asserting plain error has the burden of establishing all three elements.” State v. Hollins

Under the rule of intrinsic evidence, “a rule 404(b) analysis is unnecessary if the evidence of another crime is intrinsic to the crime charged.”

-16 (Minn. 2009) (recognizing the admissibility of “evidence which relates to offenses that were part of the immediate episode for which [a] defendant is being tried” (quotation omitted)); d 125, 131 (Minn. App. 2009) (concluding that “a rule 404(b) analysis is unnecessary if the evidence of another crime is intrinsic to the crime charged”).

Smith questions whether there is a meaningful difference between the intrinsic-evidence exception, d 125, 131-32 (Minn. App. 2009), and the immediate-episode exception and asks this court to hold that they are the same.

-16 (Minn. 2009) (recognizing the admissibility of “evidence which relates to offenses that were part of the immediate episode for which [a] defendant is being tried” (quotation omitted)); (stating that “a rule 404(b) analysis is unnecessary if the evidence of another crime is intrinsic to the crime charged”).

“An alleged error does not contrave ne caselaw unless the issue is conclusively resolved.” (quotation omitted).

“An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is ‘conclusively resolved.’” State v. Hollins , ().

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under c urrent law.” .

The discussion regarding Ancke’s warrants could have fallen under an exception to rule 404(b), because evidence of an independent crime or bad act may be admissible if excluding that evidence “would present an incoherent or incomplete story of the charged crime.”

[meaning] it contravenes case law, rule, or a standard of conduct.” (citation and quotation omitted).

“An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is 10 conclusively resolved.” State v. Hollins , (quotation omitted).

“An alle ged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is conclusively resolved.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that evidence of the criminal activity is intrinsic to the charged offense and admissible if it is inextricably intertwined with evidence of the charged offense).

“[U]nder the plain-error doctrine, we may consider the evidentiary issues if there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects the defendant’s substantial rights.”

But “the failure to object to jury instructions or to propose specific instructions constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal.”

d 125, 130-31 (Minn. App. 2009) (concluding permissive inference instruction that was “nearly identical to language found in a number of Minnesota Supreme Court cases” was not erroneous).

8 Liimatainen argues that “[m]ere presence at the crime scene alone is not sufficient to prove that a person aided or advised, because inaction, knowledge, or passive acquiescence does not rise to the level of criminal culpability.”

6 An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious” that the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”