Cited by

“Under the plain error rule, if [an appellate court] find[s] that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others.” (quotation omitted).

“When a defendant fails to object at trial” to the admission of testimony, “the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.” d 780, 784 (Minn. 2017).

See Ramey, d at 302; (explaining that an error is plain if it violates established caselaw).

“Under the plain error rule, if [an appellate court] find[s] that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others.” State v. Lilienthal , (quotation omitted).

P. 31.02; –85 (Minn. 2017).

(noting that if a reviewing court concludes that “any one of the requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others” (quotation omitted)).

But if “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, an appellate court “need not address any of the others.” (quotation omitted).

But if “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, “we need not address any of the others.” d 780, 785 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

-313 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating the general principle that “issues that are not raised by an appellant on appeal are deemed waived unless prejudicial errors are obvious from the 8 (quotation omitted).

When a defendant does not object at trial, the issue is forfeited and may only be reviewed “when there is a plain error affecting a substantial right.” (quotation omitted).

see Reed, d at 589 (applying plain error analysis when a defendant did not object to the district court’s reservation of its ruling).

See Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.001-.501 (2024); (concluding that a defendant in a first-degree murder case was not entitled to a defense-of-dwelling instruction because the victim and defendant created a tenancy at will, which had not been terminated according to landlord-tenant law) .

“Under the plain error rule, if [an appellate court] find[s] that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others.” (quotation omitted).

–85 (Minn. 2017) (“When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.”).

7 defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.” -85 (Minn. 2017).

If we conclude that “any one of the requirements is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.”

See State v. Lilienthal , 17 (providing that if any one of the plain-error prongs is not met, we need not address any other requirements).

“When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.” d 780, 784 (Minn. 2017).

“Under the plain error rule, if [an appellate court] find[s] that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others.” (quotation omitted).

“Under the plain error rule, if [an appellate court] find[s] that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, [it] need not address any of the others.” (quotation omitted).

“When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.” –85 (Minn. 2017).

“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted); (“A party is entitled to a particular jury instruction if evidence exists at trial to support the instruction.” (quotation omitted)).

“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).

-85 (Minn. 2017); see also Minn. R. Crim.