Cited by

If “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the reviewing 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 a ny of the others.” (quotation omitted).6 5 Porter-Crawford and the state, in their arguments on the coercive nature of the supplemental instruction, assumed that the bailiff gave the district court’s proposed instruction verbatim.

If “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the reviewing 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.” (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.” (quotation omitted).

“When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally preclude s appellate relief.” State v. Lilienthal , 4 (Minn. 2017).

13 “When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.” 4 State v. Lilienthal , –85 (Minn. 2017); (stating that a right may be forfeited by “the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993))).

State v. Lilienthal , (applying the plain-error test by reviewing substantial rights without analyzing error).

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).

11 447 U.S. at 235-59, 100 S. Ct. at 2127-30; review denied (Minn. March 28, 2012); (finding no prosecutorial misconduct by using defendant’s pre-Miranda silence in closing argument when the purpose was “to question the reasonableness and credibility of his testimony, not to provide independent, substantive evidence of guilt”).

(noting that if “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, we “need not address any of the others ” (quotation omitted)).

(noting that if “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, we “need not address any of the others” (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Lilienthal , (declining to consider whether appellant ’s substantial rights were affected because appellant did not show plain error).

See State v. Lilienthal , , 786 (Minn. 2017) (declining to address latter prongs of plain-error test when former prong failed).

If “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, we “need not address any of the others.” (quotation omitted).

(declining to consider whether the defendant’s substantial rights were affected because the defendant failed to show plain error).

But i f “any one of the requirements” of the plain - error test is not satisfied, we “need not address any of the others .” (quotation omitted).

“Under the plain error doctrine, the appellant must show (1) error ; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” ; see Minn. R. Crim.

(recognizing that if “any one of the requirements” of the plain -error test is not satisfied, we “need not address any of the others”).

(concluding that “we need not determine whether the district court violated [appellant’s] Fifth Amendment rights .

Compare State v. Lilienthal , (applying standard plain-error framework), (applying modified-plain-error framework).

(applying standard plain-error framework), (applying modified plain-error framework).

State v. Lilienthal , , 784 (Minn. 2017).

P. 31.02, an appellate court may consider a forfeited error when an appellant shows “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”

(“[The supreme court has] held that an objection to the admissibility of evidence must be made at the first opportunity, and that the failure to do so forfeits the right to raise the question on appeal.”); Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A.

If “any one of the requirements” for plain error is not satisfied, we “need not address any of the others.” (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his [or her] theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” ( (Minn .

4 “When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.” (“A constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal .

An evidentiary error asserted to violate a defendant’s constitutional rights is reviewed to determine whether it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; in other words, “the jury’s verdic t must be surely unattri butable to the error.” (quotati on omitted).

If “any one of the requirements” fo r plain error is not satisfied , appellate courts “need not address any of the others.” State v. Lilienthal , (quotation omitted).

−85 (Minn. 2017) (concluding that forfeitu re applied when defendant fa iled to object at trial to admission of testimony); see also State v. Beaulieu , (“A constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal .