Cited by

In the case of the former, identifying the error and assessing whether it is plain is a straightforward task — 15 we look to see if the prosecutor’s conduct, the evidentiary ruling, or the jury instruction “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

at 260–65; –81 (Minn. 1989); Ezeka, d at 408–10; –13 (Minn. 2010).

se, it does “form[] part of the evidence as a whole[, which] must both affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the defendant’s guilt.” (a lteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

d 603, 610 -11 (Minn. 2010).

d 603, 611 (Minn. 2010).

d 603, 611 (Minn. 2010).

“The releva nt instruction tells the jury that it cannot find the defendant guilty of a crime on the testimony of a person who could be charged with that crime, unless that te stimony is corroborated by other evidence that tends to convict the defendant of the crime.” d 603, 610 (Minn. 2010) (quotatio ns omitted).

To show that plain error affected his substantial rights, an appellant “bears the heavy burden of showing prejudice, which means there [must be] a reasonable likelihood that [the plain error] had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (quotations omitted).

This duty comes from “the very real possibility that the jury could reject corroborating evidence and convict on the testimony of the accomplice standing alone.” (quotation omitted).

Plain error requires reversal only if “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.” (quotation omitted).

Plain error requires reversal only if “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.” (quotation omitted).

District courts therefore “have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.” State v. Barrientos–Quintana, (quotation omitted).

Plain error requires reversal only if “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.” State v. Barrientos–Quintana, (quotation omitted).

“Error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Barrientos–Quintana, (quotation omitted).

(vacating convictions and sentences and remanding for correction of official judgment of 10 conviction where defendant was improperly convicted of alternative charges arising from single criminal act).

Plain error requires reversal only if “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.” State v. Barrientos–Quintana, (quotation omitted).

“To prevail on the third prong of the plain-error test, [the appellant] bears the heavy burden of showing prejudice, which means there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (quotation omitted).

] conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense.” Generally, the test for whether a particular witness is an accomplice is “whether the witness could have been ‘indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.’ ” (citation omitted).

(); see Minn. Stat. § 634.04 (2010) (prohibiting convictions based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony).

7 An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).