Cited by

For purposes of section 609.185(a)(6), we have defined the phrase “past pattern” as “conduct consisting of two or more prior acts that are proximate in time to each other and reflect a regular way of acting.” (citation modified).

A district court abuses its discretion when its ruling “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 - 61 (Minn. 2015) (applying the modified-plain error standard of review to the district court’s restriction of the defendant’s closing argument because it was “not entirely clear” from the district court record whether the defendant objected at trial).

“Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” - 61 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

(identifying separate errors before analyzing whether cumulative error “had a significant effect on the verdict”).

A district court abuses its discretion when its “ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

To support this statement, the authors cite two supreme court cases: -87 (Minn. 2009)

“Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State 6 v. Bustos, (quotation omitted).

12 Zielinski also argues the cumulative effect of the claimed errors warrants reversal of her conviction and remand for a new trial

A district court abuses its discretion if its decision “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”

–65 (Minn. 2015) (noting that “ ‘[i]t can hardly be questioned that closing argument serves to sharpen and clarify the issues for resolution by the trier of fact in a criminal case’ ” (quoting Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862 (1975)) and that “[t]he Supreme Court has also labeled the closing argument the

afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted); (“We conclude 4 that the district court’s restriction on defense counsel’s closing argument contradicted well- established [caselaw] and constituted plain error.”).

We review the district court’s evidentiary decisions for “a 5 clear abuse of discretion.”

We review evidentiary decisions for “a clear abuse of discretion.”

And we reverse when “failing to correct the error would have an impact beyond the current case by causing the public to seriously question whether our court system has integrity and generally offers accused persons a fair trial.” Pulczinski, d at 356 (-64 (Minn. 2015) (“A plain error affecting substantial rights warrants reversal only if the error must be addressed to ensure the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.”)).

We review evidentiary issues for “a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the errors had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

d 655, 666 (Minn. 2015).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” State v. Bustos , -61 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

And a district court abuses its discretion when its “ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” -61 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” -61 (Minn. 2015) (quotation).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” -61 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion when its “ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

5 clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” -61 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion when its “ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted) .

–64 (Minn. 2015) (explaining that a plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights war rants reversal only when the error must be addressed to ensure the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings); Olano, 507 U.S. at 736–37; Johnson, 520 U.S. at 470 (assessing whether reversal of

“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, [an appellate court] may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling is based 6 on an erroneous view of the law or is agai nst logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“[W]e may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”

We may reverse a conviction if multiple trial errors, when combined, “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” See State v. Bustos

See State v. Bustos , (holding it was “unnecessary to decide whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding” evidence because even if it did, “the error was harmless and does not warrant reversal”).

See State v. Bustos , (holding it was “unnecessary to decide whether the district court abused its discretion” in excluding evidence because even if it did, “the error was harmless and does not warrant reversal”).

v. Bustos , (quotation omitted).

Appellant bears the burden of establishing an error occurred and that the error is “clear or obvious,” which usually “means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.” State v. Bustos , –61 (Minn. 2015); see also, e.g., Ramey, d at 302.