Cited by

the evidence.” State v. Rossberg , –16 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

“An error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that it substantially affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

If the three prongs of the plain-error standard are met, we must then determine whether it is necessary to address th e error in order “to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” State v. Rossberg , (quotation omitted).

See State v. Rossberg , (noting that erroneous admission of evidence did not significantly affect the verdict where the district court “minimized the risk of prejudice by carefully and repeatedly instru cting the jury not to find [the defendant] guilty based on his past conduct”); Bartylla, d at 22 (finding that

If the plain error test is satisfied, we must then determine whether it is necessary to address the error in order “to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

“Under the plain-error standard, relief is available only if there is (1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the defendant’s substan tial rights.” (quotation omitted).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.’” -18 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

The state relies on dicta from State v. Rossberg to argue that appellant’s past-acts evidence is admissible to defeat his claim of self-defense: “[I]f the defendant claims to have acted in self-defense, the fact that the victim was afraid of the defendant might bear on whether the defendant’s account is believable.”

(noting prior incidents involving the defendant and complainant can help provide necessary background and context to the development of an ongoing conflict that assists the jury in understanding the charged offense).

Appellant “bears the ‘heavy burden’ of showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the alleged error substantially affected the verdict.” Campbell, d at 101 (

(noting defendant’s “exclusive focus” on specific hearsay exception in district court and stating that defendant failed to preserve for appeal related challenge under Confrontation Clause).

Specifically, “[appellate courts] review whether the rationale cited by the district court provides a proper basis upon which to admit the evidence.” d 609, 615–16 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

d 609, 612 (Minn. 2014).

a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record.” –18 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

-20 (Minn. 2014) (citing Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536, 537, ).

d 609, 615 (Minn. 2014).

-18 (Minn. 2014) (providing that “we will not consider a challenge to the admission of evidence unless a timely objection .

(applying only third prong of plain-error test to deny defendant’s constitutional claim, stating that it was unnecessary to consider whether there was plain error when any violation did not affect defendant’s substantial rights).

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