Cited by

An error is prejudicial when “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (citation modified).

A. Inflaming The Passions of The Jury Sathre asserts that the prosecutor inflamed the passions of the jury by stating that he “preyed upon D.L.” In a closing argument, a prosecutor may “present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence” but may not “speculate without a factual basis” or “misstate the evidence.” d 792, 804-05 (Minn. 2016) (quotation and citation omitted).

District courts have “considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions.”

If all three prongs are met, an appellate court must then “assess whether reversal is required to ensure the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

But a prosecutor is allowed to argue that there is no merit to a particular defense based on the evidence, so long as the prosecutor does not “belittle that defense either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only one with any hope for success.”

To obtain reversal based on an objected-to evidentiary error that does not implicate a constitutional right, an appellant “must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“[A]n appellant who alleges an error in the admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

State v. 20 Peltier, -05 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

If all three prongs are met, an appellate court must then “assess whether reversal is required to ensure the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

“It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quotation omitted).

(“[J]ury instructions must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case and not materially misstate the law.”).

In evaluating whether a plainly erroneous jury instruction affected substantial rights, the reviewing court “look[s] to all relevant factors.”

A district court enjoys “considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions, including the specific language of those instructions.” d 791, 795-96, (Minn. 2026) ().

“The state may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence in closing argument.” (quotation omitted).

We add that a defendant’s having the opportunity to address a prosecutor’s improper closing statements mitigates prejudice, d 792, 806 (Minn. 2016), and in this case Gross not only had the rebuttal opportunity, he availed himself of it.

“If plain error is established, the burden then shifts to the State to demonstrate that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” d 792, 803 (Minn. 2016).

A district court’s jury instructions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, with the district court “enjoy[ing] considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions, including the specific language of those instructions.”

In analyzing whether prosecutorial misconduct affected a defendant’s substantial rights, appellate courts consider three factors: “(1) the strength of the evidence against [the defendant]; (2) the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct; and (3) whether [the defendant] had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” - 06 (Minn. 2016).

See, d 792, 805-06 (Minn. 2016) (considering the strength of the evidence, the pervasiveness of the misconduct, and whether the defendant had the opportunity to rebut the improper remarks).

When the alleged evidentiary error “does not implicate a constitutional right ,” the appellant “must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

It is misconduct for the prosecutor to argue facts not in evidence or to “mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quoting Bobo, d at 142).

“The State may argue that there is no merit in a particular defense, but it may not belittle that defense either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defendant raised the defense because it was the only one with any hope for success.”

d 792, 803 (Minn. 2016) (conducting harmless- error analysis of alleged evidentiary error without analyzing whether it was an error).

To obtain reversal based on an objected-to evidentiary error that does not implicate a constitutional right, an appellant “must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

If an alleged error does not implicate a constitutional right, an appellant may obtain reversal only if they show that “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

In any event, even if the evidence were wrongfully admitted, appellant would need to show “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Peltier , (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted).

Relying 5 on State v. Peltier, Dorsey characterizes the prosecutor’s arguments as “psychological hypotheses.”

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious,” meaning that the “error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

In making this determination, a reviewing court considers “(1) the strength of the evidence against [the defendant]; (2) the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct; and (3) whether [the defendant] had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” -06 (Minn. 2016).

It is also misconduct for a prosecutor to “speculate without a factual basis” or “mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” -06 (Minn. 2016).

12 opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” -06 (Minn. 2016) ().

d 792, 797 (Minn. 2016).

In assessing whether plain error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, this court considers: “ (1) the strength of the evidence against [the appellant]; (2) the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct; and (3) whether [the appellant] had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.” - 06 (Minn. 2016).