Cited by

tatement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted may be admissible if it is exempted from the definition of hearsay or falls under an applicable 2 Plain error affects substantial rights when it “was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case,” meaning that “there [was] a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious,” usually when the prosecutor contravened “case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“[E]xpert testimony is not helpful if the expert opinion is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability 7 to reach conclusions.” (quotation omitted).

But under the plain-error standard, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the error affected his substantial rights, and it is a “heavy burden.” (stating that “[p]lain error is prejudicial when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict” and that “[t]he defendant bears a heavy burden of persuasion on this prong”) (quotations omitted)).

Plain error affects substantial rights when it is “prejudicial” and impacts “the outcome of the case.”

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious .” (quotation omitted).

An error is “plain” if it is “clear or obvious,” (quotation omitted), meaning it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 868, 872 (Minn. 2010).

In making this determination, we consider “the strength of the [s]tate’s case, the pervasiveness of the error, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to respond.” d 868, 873 (Minn. 2010).

8 “An error is plain if it is clear or obvious,” usually when the district court contravened “case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

Further, “[e]xpert testimony may also be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.” –73 (Minn. 2010) (citing Minn. R. Evid.

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious,” usually when the district court contravened “case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 868, 872 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

“[E]xpert testimony is not helpful if the expert opinion is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions .” (quotation omitted).

(concluding that defendant’s substantial rights were not violated by improper admission of testimony when substantial evidence supported his guilt).

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”

Under the third prong of the plain-error standard, “[s]ubstantial rights are affected when a plain error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

(stating that if the appellant cannot prove an alleged error affecting substantial rights, a court applying plain- error analysis “need not c onsider the other factors”); (stating that even if the district court erred, “a new trial is not warranted”

State v. Sontoya , 76 (Minn. 2010).

“When prosecutorial misconduct is not alleged, the defendant has the burden of proving (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.” ().

(stating that if a defendant cannot prove an alleged error affected their substantial rights, a court applying the plain-error analysis “need not consider the other factors” (quotation omitted)); Hall, d at 843 (stating that “even if it was error” for the district court not to suppress di

cmt.; -78 (Minn. 2010); d 227, 230 (Minn. 1982).

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

(declining to consider pro se defendant’s argument offered without supporting legal authority); ( noting that “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities .

(evaluating the strength of the state’s case to determine if plain error ha d a significant effect on the jury’s verdict).

(declining to consider pro se argument where 10 appellant failed to cite legal authority to s upport claim).

To evalu ate the likelihood that the error significantly affected the verdict, we consider factors including “the strength of the [s]tate’s case, the pervasiveness of the error, and whet her the defendant had an opportunity to respond.”

When eva luating whether 8 the error significantly affected the verdict, we review “the strength of the [s]tate’s case, the pervasiveness of the error, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the testimony.”

City of New Hope , (stating that “[w]hile some latitude and consideration is provided by all courts to persons appearing pro se, we cannot permit bending of all rules and requirements”); (noting that failure to cite legal authority or articulate an argument waives the issues).

(declining to address claim on merits where pro se appellant “d[id] not cite either the record or legal authority to support this claim”).

(declining to address claim on merits where pro se appellant “d[id] not cite either the record or legal authority to support this claim”); Roby, d at 357 (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).

P. 31.02 “ allows appellate courts to correct forfeited errors” (emphasis added)); State v. Sontoya , (“We have discretion to review unobjected to error under the plain error rule.” (emphasis added)).

See State v. Sontoya , , 876 (Minn. 2010) (declining to address a pro se claim on the merits where the pro se defendant did not cite in his pro se brief either the record or legal authority); State v. Bartylla , , 22 (Minn. 2008) (noting that "[w]e will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either argumen

(internal quotations omitted).

(“ [I]f a defendant fails to esta blish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.” (quotation omitted)).

Plainness is shown if the error “contravenes case 6 law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (citation omitted).

In evaluating whether an error affected substantial rights, we must consider whether there is a “reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”

In evaluating whether any error affected Llona’s substantial rights, we must “examine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”