Cited by

If these three elements are satisfied, the appellant must also show that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

Although Minnesota appellate courts, too, have held that personal waiver is required for a defendant to waive at least the rights to jury trial and to counsel, –7 (Minn. App. 2023), we have not decided whether a defendant must personally waive the confrontation right.

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement: that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a 8 fourth requirement: that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

(citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement: that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

If these three elements are satisfied, the appellant must also show that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.” d 878, 884 (Minn. 2014).

–84 (Minn. 2014) (declining to decide whether a forfeiture or plain error standard applies to a Blakely claim because the same relief resulted under either standard).

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement: that the error “ seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

But ultimately, “[w]hether a waiver of a constitutional right was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement: that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement: that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement, that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement: that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

To succeed based on plain error, Hunter must prove that (A) there was a plain error, (B) the error affected his substantial rights, and (C) the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings.”

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement: that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.”); (citing this aspect of Plowman).

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement, that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

5 An error affected substantial rights if it “affected the outcome of the case” and “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant impact on the proceeding.” (quotation omitted).

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement, that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970); State v. Little , d 878, 882 (Minn. 2014).

If these three requirements are satisfied, the appellant also must satisfy a fourth requirement, that the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

“An error is clear or obvious if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

Brady v. United States , 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)

d 519, 528 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted); () (noting that the fairness-and-integrity prong is not met when a new trial would be futile and waste judicial resources); Kelley, d at 457.

We therefore must determine whether the unobjected- 9 to error was “(1) an error, (2) that was plain, (3) that affected [appellant’s] substantial rights.”

“An error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the proceeding.”

d at 630; n.3 (Minn. 2014) (Stras, J., dissenting) (“It is an open question in Minnesota whether unpreserved structural errors lead to the automatic reversal of a conviction.”) 21 administration.

See, e.g., State v. Little , -86 (Minn. 2014).

d 878, 884 (Minn. 2014).

An error impacts substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” (quotation omitted).

We will only correct plain error if it “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

Relief will not be granted unless the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.”