Cited by

“If these three prongs are satisfied, the court then assesses whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

When a defendant fails to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial—as Westrom did—–300 (Minn. 2006), under which “the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that was plain.”

(“We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court.”).

The state meets this burden if it shows “that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

The evidence presented under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 is often referred to as “relationship evidence.”

750, expressing personal opinions, as indicated by the use of “I” 32 statements, and disparaging the defense, 4 We are not persuaded by Foster’s assertions that the prosecutor plainly erred by calling Foster a liar, by shifting the burden of proof to Foster, see McDaniel, d at 750-51; by commenting on the defense’s failure to call a witness, see Mayhorn, d at 787; or by disparaging the defense, see Bailey, d at 403-04.

“Because no objection was made, we apply the modified plain-error test outlined in Ramey,” under which “the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that was plain.” ().

To the contrary, we assume that juries follow district court instructions, and we therefore will not assume that the district court’s repeated cautioning against using the testimony as character evidence against Cocuzzi aggravated any danger that the jury would apply the evidence unfairly.

In a prosecution for criminal sexual conduct , evidence of domestic conduct by the accused against the victim , commonly known as relationship evidence, is “admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice .” 9 Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2022) ; State v. Matthews

This evidence “is commonly referred to as relationship evidence.”

See State v. Matthews , (explaining that, for unobjected -to misconduct, the court applies a modified plain-error test under which “the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that was plain” before the burden “shifts to the State to demonstrate that the error did not affect

The state meets this burden if it shows “that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict.” State v. Matthews , (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

Relationship evidence is also admissible to “provide[] context for the crime charged,” which may “assist[] the jury” in “judg[ing] the credibility of the principals in the relationship.”

This evidence “is commonly referred to as relationship evidence.”

404(b) refers to “character evidence that may be offered to show the strained relationship between the 7

against other family or household members,” which is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20

(explaining that we presume the jury followed the district court’s instructions).

Claims of unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed pursuant to a modified-plain-error standard which first requires the defendant to demonstrate “that the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes an error that is plain,” and then the burden shifts “to the state to demonstrate lack of prejudice.”

The district court may allow the state to present “[e]vidence of domestic conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic conduct, or against other family or household members,” often called “relationship evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2022)

(stating that error is usually plain if it “contradicts case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct”).

“We assume that the jury followed the court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence.” (“We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court.”) .

This type of evidence is commonly called “relationship evidence.”

But there is an exception for what is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”

Claims of unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed pursuant to a modified-plain-error standard which first requires the defendant to demonstrate “that the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes an error that is plain,” then the burden shifts to the state “to demonstrate lack of prejudice.”

“ If these three prongs are satisfied, the court then assesses whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

Claims of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct are revi ewed pursuant to a modified-plain-error standard which first requi res the defendant to demonstrate “that the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes an error that is plain,” then the burde n shifts to the state “to demonstrate lack of prejudice.”

First, viewing the closing argument as a whole, the prosecutor’s statement was brief and did not “permeate the entire argument” or establish a “theme.” See State v. Matthews , (finding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by prosecutor’s 11 alleged misconduct during closing arguments where prosecutor’s improper statements did not “permeate the entire argument”); State v. Johnson , -30 (Minn. 2000) (finding no prosec utorial miscondu

A prosecutor’s closing argument “may include conclusions and inferences that are reasonably drawn from the facts in evidence.”

Under the plain -error test, an appellant must show “that there was (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”