Cited by

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”).

Because Campbell’s pretrial motion to prohibit testimony involving a weapon operates as a timely objection, n.1 (Minn. App. 2003), we review under the harmless-error standard, d 629, 633 (Minn. 2011).

( “The third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.

“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.” (quotations omitted).

(listing factors to consider when determining whether any prejudice arose from inadmissible testimony) .

However, the state argues that this error does not require reversal because it “proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the weight of the oil contained in only one of the cartridges was felony level.” “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).

21 “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.” (quotations omitted).

“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.” State 8 v. Matthews, (quotation omitted).

Thus, “[t]he court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”

“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.” (quotations omitted).

An error affects the defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002); (“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the 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).

If an appellant establishes the first three requirements of the plain-error test, “we will correct the error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or the public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

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

d 629, 633 (Minn. 2011).

The final factor is not conclusive, but “[o]verwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt is a f actor, often a very important one.” Id.

Under this standard, an appe llant who alleges an error must prove that there is “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

When the alleged error does not implicate a constitutional right, the defendant must prove “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotations omitted).

See Chavez-Nelson, d at 588 (stating that a conviction will be reversed based on evidentiary error only if the appellant’s substantial rights were prejudiced); see also State v. Matthews , (stating that a district court’s ruling on an evidentiary objection is reviewed for harmless error).

Kinney argues that he is entitled to a new trial because there is a reasonable possibility that the SANE’ s “improper testimony substantially influenced the jury to convict.” When an alleged error does not implicate a constitutional right, the defendant must prove “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotations omitted).

If the ruling does not implicate a constitutional right, the defendant must prove “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotations omitted).

When the alleged error does not implicate a constitutional right, the defendant must prove “there is a reasonabl e possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Matthews , (quotations omitted).

And our anal ysis under this prong “is the equivalent of [a] harmless error analysis.” State v. Matthews , (M inn.

“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) .

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

We review a district court’s evidentiary determinations for an abuse of discretion, Ness, d at 685, governed by the harmless error standard

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

But even if we did, to reverse Taylor’s conviction, he must show that there is a reasonable probability that the jury instruction “significantly affected the verdict.” n.3 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted)

State v. Matthews , , 633 (Minn. 2011) (articulating the harmless-error test) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Manthey , , 506 (Minn. 2006) (finding that there was no abuse of discretion by district court's refusal to grant a mistrial because there was no reasonable probability that

d 629, 633 (Minn. 2011).

833 (Minn. 1998); (providing that the “third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of [the] harmless error analysis” and analyzing the four factors outlined in Ferguson).

“[T]he third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harm less error analysis.”

State v. Matthews , d 629, 633 (Minn. 2011).

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

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

d 629, 633 (Minn. 2011).