Cited by

Because the error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights, we need not analyze whether the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (stating that, if any element of plain-error standard of review “is not satisfied,” appellate courts “need not address any of the others”).

(“[I]f we find that any one of the [plain-error] requirements is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”).

See Montanaro v. State, 16 (“[I]f we find that any one of the [plain-error] requirements is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”).5 C As a final matter, Hassan argues he is entitled to a new trial because of the cumulative effect of the district court’s errors.

-33 (Minn. 2011) (observing that the plain-error rule gives appellate courts “the discretion to review an unobjected-to trial error” and reviewing unobjected-to jury instruction); WL 368539, at *6 (Minn. App. Feb.

See, -34 (Minn. 2011) (observing that the plain-error rule gives courts “the discretion to review an unobjected -to trial error,” and reviewing unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct during trial for plain error); -30 (Minn. App. 2017) (reviewing unobjected -to evidentiary ruling

(noting that if any requirement of the test is not satisfied, we need not address the remaining elements).

(stating that, if an appellate court determines “that any one of the [plain-error] requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others”).

(noting that if any requirement of the test is not satisfied, we need not address the remaining elements).

Even if all three prongs are sa tisfied, an appellate court should grant relief only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Scruggs , ().

State v. Lilienthal , (applying the plain-error test by reviewing substantial rights without analyzing error).

In deciding whether the misconduct significantly affected the jury’s verdict, an appellate court considers factors such as “the strength of evidence,” “the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct,” and whether the appellant had “the opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” Peltier, d at 805-06; (after considering the prosecuting attorney’s closing argument in context, concluding the misconduct, whether viewed in isolation or collectively, did not affect the jury’s verdict or appellant’s substa

See 8 Montanaro v. State , (concluding self-defense instruction could not have had significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”).

to support his contention that we can reach the merits of his claim even if it is untimely, these cases are inapposite.

(stating that all three prongs of the plain-error test must be satisfied to merit reversal of a conviction, and if an appellate court determines that “any one of the requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others”).

See Montanaro v. State , (concluding that, after review of the prosecutor’s closing argument in light of t he entire record, any misconduct viewed in isolation or collectively did not have a s ignificant impact on the jury’s verdict and did not affect substantial rights).

When reviewing whether a prosecutor’s argument overstepped these lines, this court considers “the argument as a whole, rather than focusing on particular phrases or remarks.” (quotations omitted); (concluding that after reviewing the prosecutor’s closing argument in light of the entire record, any misconduct viewed in isolation or 11 collectively did not have a significant impact on the jury’s verdict and did not affect substantial rights).

(concluding that after revie wing 20 the prosecutor’s closing argument in light of the entire record , any misconduct viewed in isolation or collectively did not have a significant impact on the jury’s verdict and did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights).

All three prongs of the plain -error test must be satisfi ed to merit reversal of a conviction, and if an appellate court “find[s] that any one of the 7 requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others.” ; see Parker, d at 926.

(appellate courts need not address remaining prongs of plain error standard of review if any one requirement is not satisfied).

See Montanaro v. State , (stating that if an appellate court finds that any one of the plain-error elements is not satisfied, it does not need to address any of the others).

(explaining that “to the extent that any of the prosecutor’s statements made during closing argument constituted misconduct, that misconduct ...

(“[I]f we find that any one of the requirements [under the plain-error test] is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”).

Under the plain error rule, “if we find that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”