Cited by

“[T]o meet the plain error standard, a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

(stating that appellate courts review unobjected-to errors using the “plain error test”).

4, replaced Lothenbach as the method for preserving a dispositive pretrial issue for appellate review in a criminal case.”

To support its argument that Walford did not plead guilty to the charges and instead proceeded under rule 26.01, subdivision 3

We ordinarily review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test[,]” under which “a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, 5 and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” d 799, 804 (Minn. 2016) ().

Appellate courts review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.”

This court ordinarily reviews an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test[,]” under which “a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” ().

(stating that an appellate court may deem issues raised in a brief, but “not adequately argued or explained,” forfeited on appeal).

Generally, we do “not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review.” (); n.4 (Minn. 2022).

Appellate courts review unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.”

Appellate courts review unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.”2

-06 (Minn. 2016) (“[P]lain error analysis applies to unobjected-to errors committed under Rule 26.01, subdivision 4.”).

- 07 (Minn. 2016) (party mentioning alleged error in passing and providing no substantial argument or analysis forfeits issue and appellate courts need not consider it).

“In order to meet the plain error standard, a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

(stating that failure to brief an issue on appeal may result in forfeiture of the issue).

5 substantial rights.” ().

We review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.”

Based on our reading of the record, however, Watkins did not object in the district court to the jury instruction that he challenges on appeal.5 We review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.”

Generally, “to meet the plain error standard, a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

To meet the plain-error standard, a defendant “must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

We review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.”

(stating that we review unobjected-to error under the “plain error test”).