Cited by

In determining whether erroneously admitted evidence affected the verdict, we consider “the manner in wh ich the evidence was presen ted, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing ar gument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” Townsend v. State , (“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”).

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

“If the defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other plain error factors.”

d 629, 634 (Minn. 2011).

This court considers the following factors to determine whether the error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict: “(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.”

(Matthews II, unrelated to Matthews).

Put another way, an error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotations and citation omitted); (stating that “[a] plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable 7 likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict” and explaining that this analysis “is the equivalent of a harmless error anal

On the other hand, if all “three prongs are established, we will correct the error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or the public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

(determining error was harmless where prosecutor’s discussion of contested evidence was limited to three sentences in 18-page closing argument).

An evidentiary error that does not implicate a constitutional right5 warrants a new trial if there is a “reasonable possibility” that the error “significantly affected the verdict.” (quotations omitted).

Under the harmless-error standard, an appellant who alleges an error in the admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(concluding that testimony did not significantly impact the verdict because the manner in which the testimony was presented was brief; the testimony was not highly persuasive of guilt and other, strong evidence established guilt; the defense counsel countered the testimony in closing argument; an

“The court’s analysis under [this] 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.”

Under the harmless-error analysis, a defendant who alleges an error that does not implicate a constitutional right will be granted a new trial if the defendant proves that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the error "significantly affected the verdict.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).

3 Under the Andersen test, we must first identify the circumstances proved, and in doing so, we will “defer to the fact-finder’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and the fact-finder’s rejection of evidence in the record that conflicts with the circumstances proved by the State.” (citing Andersen, d at 329 ).

“When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, we use a two-step test to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence.”