Cited by

To warrant reversal, Frye must show that “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Peltier , (quotation omitted).

“If all three [parts] of the test are met, [this court] may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial procee dings.” (quotations omitted).

(holding that prosecutorial misconduct did not affect defendant’s substantial rights when the evidence supporting conviction was ov erwhelming, the misconduct was isolated, and there was opportunity to rebut the erroneous statements).

“[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 affe cted the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Peltier , , 803 (Minn. 2016).

If the three steps of the plain-error test are satisfied, this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (alteration in original) (quotations omitted).3 We determine that the state has met its burden to prove that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not affect Bandow’s substantial rights; as a result, we decline to address whether any prosecutorial misconduct actually occurred.

“If all three prongs of the test are met, [the reviewing court] may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputati on of judicial proceedings.” State v. Peltier , (quotations omitted).

The district court "has an obligation to safeguard" fundamental rights at trial, State v. Cassidy , , 711 (Minn. 1997), and a criminal defendant's right to confront opposing witnesses is fundamental to a fair adversarial process, State v. Peltier , , 804 (Minn. 2016).

The district court “has 7 an obligation to safeguard” fundamental rights at trial, and a criminal defendant’s right to confront opposing witn esses is fundamental to a fair adversarial process

If the defendant demonstrates plain error and the state fails to carry its burden on the substantial-rights prong, then appellate courts will assess whether reversal is required to ensure “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Peltier , , 804 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

A. Hard road/easy road and do-the-right-thing statements Rose first contends that it was plain error for the prosecutor to urge jurors to “do the right thing” and to “take the hard road,” as well as stating that finding Rose guilty of only one count would be taking the “easy road.” But “[i]t is well-settled th at the State has the right to vigorously argue its case.”

“If all three prongs of the test are met, we may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (alteration in original) (quotations omitted).

When determining if erroneously admitted ev idence substantially affected the verdict, we consider “(1) the manner in which the State presented the testimony; (2) whether the testimony was highly persuasive; (3) whether the State used the testimony in closing argument; and (4) whethe r the defense effectively countered the testimony.” State v. Peltier , (citation omitted).

“[A]n appellant who alleges an erro r 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.” State v. Peltier

“If all three prongs of the test are me t, we may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (M inn.

see State v. Matthews , (“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”).

“If all three prongs of the test are met, we may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputatio n of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).

“If all three parts of the test are met, we may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Peltier , (assuming without deciding that admission of expert testimony about “ particularly vicious” punishment of a child was abuse of discretion in first-degree murder by child abuse case before analyzing whether error was harmless).

ANALYSIS “We review a district court’s jury instructions for an abuse of discretion,” and recognize that the district court has “considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions.”

“If all three prongs of the test are met, we may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

See, d 792, 806 (Minn. 2016) (concluding that prosecutorial misconduct did not affect substantial rights, in part, when the misconduct co mprised only one page of a 39 -page closing argument).

“If all three prongs of the test are met, we may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicia l proceedings.”

P. 31.0 1; (stating that an objected-to error is reviewed under the harmless-error standard).

“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.”

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

If all three prongs of the modified plain-error test are satisfied, we may correct the plain error “only if it seriously affect s the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotations omitted).

“If plain error is established, the burden then shif ts to the State to demonstrate that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.”

However, the state “may not belittle [a] 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.”

“We review a district court’s jury instructions for an abuse of discretion,” and give the district court “considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions.”

ed evidence significantly affected the verdict, the reviewing court considers: “(1) the manner in which the [s]tate presented the testimony; (2) whether the testimony was highly persuasive; (3) whether the [s]tate used the 11 testimony in closing argument; and (4) whether the defense effectively countered the testimony.”