Cited by

(concluding that defendant failed to meet first prong of plain-error test).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an a pplicable standard of conduct.”

“[T]he term prejudice in Rule 403 does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that resu lts from the legitimate pr obative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that resu lts from the capacity of the evidence to persuade [the jury] by illegitimate means.” (quotations omitted).

But this right is “subject to the limitations imposed by the rules of evidence.” State v. Mosley

See State v. Mosley , (explaining that if one plai n-error prong is dispositive we need not consider other prongs) ; see also Hummel v. State , (affirming district court’ s postconviction decision on alternative grounds).

Ramey, d at 300; -54 (Minn. 1994); review denied (Minn. Nov.

While a defendant has the constitutional right to present a complete defense, this right is “subject to the limit ations imposed by the rules of evidence.”

One way in which a pros ecutor may engage in misconduct is “to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Mosley , n.2 (Minn. 2014) (finding that an evidentiary issue was not preserved for appeal when the defendant made an objection on due-process grounds, but failed to state the specific ground of object ion under an evidentiary rule).

In general, it is “misconduct for a prosecutor to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the ju ry’s attention.” (quotation omitted).

expert witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by the rules of evidence.”

“[T]he term ‘prejudice’ in Rule 403 ‘does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade [the jury] by illegitimate means.’ ” ( n.2 (Minn. 1985)).

(assuming plain error in the admission of testimony that defendant may have been a drug dealer, but concluding that the defendant’s substantial rights were not affected because the testimony was limited, and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming).

would have had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

For example, the defendant sought to introduce expert testimony concerning the accuracy of eyewitness identificatio ns.

-03 (Minn. 20 14) (holding that, even assuming that plain error occurred, relief is not warranted when the defendant’s substantial rights are not violated).

See, e.g. , State v. Mosley , , 795 (Minn. 2014) (discussing CSLI evidence but not examining whether it was admissible); Francis v. State , , 895 (Minn. 2010) (same); State v. Tran , , 543 (Minn. 2006) (same).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” State v. Mosley , (quoting State v. Milton , ).

(quotation omitted) (discussing exclusion of unfairly prejudicial evidence under Minn. R. Evid.

“Generally, evidence is relevant and has probative value when it logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.”

" State v. Mosley , , 797 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Cermak , , 247 n.2 (Minn. 1985) ).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

State v. Mosley , , 798-99 (Minn. 2014).

Under Minnesota law, “to properly preserve a claim that evidenc e should be excluded under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, a defendant must timely object and state the specific ground of objection.” n.2 (Minn. 2014) (quotations and emphasis omitted).

State v. Mosley , , 801 (Minn. 2014).

(stating that when the district court made detailed findings of fact with significant evidence pointing to the defendant’s guilt and did not include references to the inadmissible evidence, there was no reasonable likelihood that the inadmissible evidence had a significant effect on the judge’s c

.” 5 The United States Supreme Court held in Perry v. New Hampshire that “the Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.” 565 U.S. 228, 248, 132 S. Ct. 716, 730 (2012); (relying on Perry in concluding that when law enforcement does not arrange a witness’s identification, the admission of the identification

See State v. Mosley , n.2 (Minn. 2014); d 578, 614 (Minn. 2004).

(“Assuming without deciding the reference to drugs in [witness]’s direct examination was plain error, we conclude that the testimony did not affect [defendant]’s substantial rights.”).

State v. Mosley , d 789, 798–99 (Minn. 2014).

–797, 797 n.2 (Minn. 2014) (applying plain error test to argument that evidence should have been excluded under Minn. R. Evid.

When considering whether an error affected a defendant’s substantial rights, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiven ess of the improper suggesti ons, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” (quotations omitted).

See, (determining that no relief was warranted where defendant’s substantial rights were not affected, even upo n an assumption of plain error).

n.2 (Minn. 2014) (citing Minn. R. Evid.