Cited by

We will not reverse a conviction over erroneously admitted evidence unless there is a “reasonable possibility” that this evidence “significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted) .

This is “the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

d 48, 59 (Minn. 2024) (concluding that defendant “did not effectively counter the inadmissible evidence” and this favored conclusion that error was not harmless); (stating that substantial-rights analysis “is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis”).

Although harmless error and plain error are different, the substantial-rights prong of the plain-error standard “is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

For the reasons set forth above, Lanham would have satisfied the substantial-rights element because the substantial-rights analysis is “the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

“A plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

The district court relied on appellant’s 2 Because the third prong of the plain-error standard “is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis,” even if I applied the harmless-error standard, appellant’s argument would likewise fail.

“A plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected 14 the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

If the error does not implicate a constitutional right, as is the case here, the harmless-error standard controls and the appellant “must prove there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotations omitted).

Our analysis under this prong of the plain-error test “is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

l rights, we may consider the following factors: “(1) the manner in which the party presented the evidence, (2) whether the evidence was highly persuasive, (3) whether the party who offered the evidence used it in closing argument, and (4) whether the defense effectively countered the evidence.” d 48, 54 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Matthews , (noting that the harmless-error analysis, which considers these factors, is “equivalent” to analysis under the third prong of the p

2 An appellate court’s “analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

dence,” (B) “whether the party who offered the evidence used it in closing argument,” (C) “whether the evidence was highly persuasive,” and (D) “whether the defense effectively countered the evidence.” d 48, 54 (Minn. 12 2024) () (stating the factors for the harmless-error analysis); (noting that the harmless-error analysis is “equivalent” to analysis under the third prong of the plain-error test).

Although harmless error and plain error are different, the substantial -rights prong of the plain -error standard “is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.” d 629, 634 (Minn. 2011).

A defendant’s substantial rights are affected “when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he third prong of the plain error standard is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

This is “the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

The substantial-rights prong of the modified plain-error test “is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

“A plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

But “[i]f the [appellant] fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other plain error factors.”

Admission of testimony is a reversible abuse of discretion if there is “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.” State v. Matthews

In evaluating the reasonable likelihood that admission of the evidence significantly affected the verdict, appellate courts consider “(1) the manner in which the State presented the testimony, (2) whether the testi mony was highly persuasive, (3) whether the State used the testimony in closing argument, and (4) whether the defense effectively countered the testimony.” State v. Matthews

.” n.2 (Minn. 1994) (emphasis omitted)

d 629, 633-34 (Minn. 2011) (describing harmless -error and plain -error review); Sessions, d at 756 (applying harmless-error review to an improper jury communication).

Such an error affected substantial rights when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.”

In evaluating the reasonable likelihood that admission of the evidence significantly affected the verdict, appellate courts consider “(1) the manner in which the State presented the testimony, (2) whether the testimony was highly persuasive, (3) whether the State used the testimony in closing argument, and (4) whether the defense effectively countered the testimony.”

(“Under the harmless error standard, a defendant who alleges an error that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted)).

An error affects a criminal defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” Id.; (stating that “analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent to a harmless error analysis”).