Cited by

If all three prongs are satisfied, we may correct the error “only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citation and quotations 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. Peltier , -06 (Minn. 2016).

“Under [a] plain-error analysis, [appellant] is required to establish (1) an e rror, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects her substantial rights.”

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

But a prosecutor is not permitted to disparage the defense in closing argument.” (citation omitted).

Appellant “must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

d 792, 803 (Minn. 2016).

On the first two elements, an error occurs if the prosecutor’s conduct “ contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,” and is plain if it is “clear or obvious.”

But “a lawyer may not speculate without a factual basis.” .

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

We consider various factors, including: “(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).

If all three elements of the test are met, “[this court] may correct the error on ly if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public 7 reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).

“Typically, a ‘plain’ error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

“inflamed the passions of the jury and injected broader societal issues by appealing to jurors’ instincts to protect children from sexual abuse.” In a closing argument, the state may “present all legitimate ar guments 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) (quotations omitted).

“The district court enjoys considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions, including the specific language of those instructions.” State v. Peltier

In State v. Peltier, the supreme court concluded that the prosecutor’s improper remarks had no effect on the defendant’s substantial rights because, in part, the “incidents of alleged misconduct were isolated, together comprising approximately one page of a 39-page closing argument.”

“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear or obvious.” State v. Peltier

If the three elements—error, that is plain, and that affected substantial rights—are satisfied, this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).

“We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Peltier, 3

State v. Sanchez-Sanchez , , 330 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Peltier , , 799 (Minn. 2016) ).

3 The parties both suggested a test with slightly different fact ors, drawn from State v. Peltier, which examines: “(1) the manne r i n w h i c h t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d the testimony; (2) whether the testimony was highly persuasive; (3) whether the State used the testimony in closing argument; and (4) whether the defense effectively countered the testimony.” (citing Matthews, d at 634).

“An error is ‘plain’ if it i s clear or obvious.”

We consider various factors, including: “(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 imp roper remarks.” -06 (Minn. 2016).

(stating that admission of physical evidence will be upheld unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion).

prohibit you from telling the jurors what at least you think those terms mean.” Accordingly, the court instructed the jury, “If I’ve not defined a word or a phrase, you should apply the common, ordinary m eaning of that word or phrase.” “The district court enjoys considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions, including the specific language of those instructions.”

If all three elements of the test are met, “[this court] may correct the error only i f it seriously affect[s] the 12 fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedin gs.” State v. Peltier , (quotations omitted).

“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear or obvious.”

See State v. Peltier , (analyzing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error).

Keller is corr ect that a prosecutor is 2 If all three elements of the test are met, this court corrects the error “only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judi cial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).

When a district court’s eviden tiary error follows a timely obj ection, the harmless- error standard applies.3

and that [appellant] was prejudiced by its admission.” d 792, 802 (Minn. 2016).