Cited by

“A district court error is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious’ when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well -established and longstanding legal principles.”

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when “ there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” State v. B rown, (quotation omitted) .

“An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.”

103(a)(1)), or when “the ground for the objection is clear from the context of the 7 objection.”

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

An error is plain “when it cont ravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Brown

tisfy the third prong of the plain-error test, [Barthman] bears the ‘heavy burden’ of showing there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that [the error] had a significant effect on the jury verdict.’ ” (); –82 (Minn. 2015)

To establish plain error, an appellant must show “(1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

A district court error is plain “when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and l ongstanding legal principles.” (quotations omitted).

A district court error is plain “when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

A d istrict court error is plain “when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well- established and longstanding legal principles.”

An error is clear or obvious “when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and lo ngstanding legal principles.” State v. Brown

we consider the common dictionary definition of the word or phrase.” State v. Brown

When a statute does not contain a definition of a word or phrase, we look to the “common dictionary 5 definition of the word or phrase” to discover its “plain and ordinary meaning.”

To determine the plain meaning of a word or phrase, appellate courts rely on “common dictionary definition[s] of the word or phrase.”

The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: “(1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Rossberg, d at 618 ().

See generally State v. Brown , (providing that an objection to admission of evidence must state a “specific ground .

An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

When a statute or a rule does not contain a definition of a word or phrase, we look to the “common dictionary definition of the word or phrase” to discover its “plain and ordinary meaning.”

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

[appellate courts] consider the common dictionary definition of the word or phrase.” see Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010) (“The United States Supreme Court has recognized the usefulness and appropriateness in consulting Black’s Law Dictionary when conducting a plain-language reading of a statute, as have we.”).

[appellate courts] consider the common dictionary definition of the word or phrase.”

appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context” (quotation omitted)); Minn. R. Evid.

d 815, 820 (Minn. 2011) (citing Minn. R. Evid.

An error is plain “when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards 17 well-established and longstanding legal principles.” (citation omitted).

An error is plain “when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

103(d) expressly permits us to take notice of “errors in fundamental law or of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” We reached a

An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

An error is “plain” if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

An error is plain “when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”

(“We are unable to determine the specific ground for the objection from the context and, therefore, analyze whether the district court erred in admitting Brown’s omnibus-hearing statement under a plain-error analysis.”).

(determining whether a claimed ground for an objection was apparent by considering whether there were other plausible grounds for the objection in context).

“A district court error is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious’ when it contravenes a rule, case law, or a standard of conduct, or when it disregards well-established and longstanding legal principles.”