Cited by

If the state fails to meet its burden, we then “consider whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

If the state does not meet its burden, the reviewing court considers “whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

“If the State 10 fails to demonstrate that the alleged error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, [appellate courts] consider whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

“If the State fails to demonstrate that the alleged error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, we consider whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

If the state fails to carry its burden, the reviewing court “consider[s] whether 13 the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

If the appellant establishes plain error, “the burden shifts to the [s]tate to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the [appellant]’s substantial rights.”

And in State v. Parker, the supreme court rejected an appellant’s argument that an “additional rationale” is required before concluding that an aggravating factor “is a sufficient basis to enhance a sentence from the presumptive guidelines range.” d 917, 928–29 (Minn. 2017).

See, - 29 (Minn. 2017) (affirming reliance on zone-of- privacy aggravating factor based on jury’s finding that crime occurred in victim’s home); d 579, 583 (Minn. 2024) (affirming reliance on zone-of-privacy aggravating factor based on jury’s finding that crime occurred in victim’s bedroom

“To evaluate the effect on substantial rights, we consider various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” State v. Parker , (quotation omitted).

“To evaluate the effect on substantial rights, we consider various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

d 917, 926 (Minn. 2017).

In evaluating whether a defendant’s substantial rights were affected, this court considers “the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

To evaluate the effect of the alleged misconduct on Phipps’s substantial rights, we “consider various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

“To evaluate the effect on substantial rights, we consider various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotations omitted).

If the sta te fails to meet its burden on the substantial-rights prong, then we consider “whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.” d 917, 926 (Minn. 2017).

15 prongs and the State fails to satisfy the third prong, we determine “whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Id.

departure: a victim must “contend psychologically not only with the fact that she was sexually assaulted in a brutal way but also with the fact that her home is no longer the island of security that she perhaps thought it was.” (recognizing the zone-of-privacy aggravating factor in a criminal sexual conduct case); –29 (Minn. 2017) 6 (recognizing application of the zone-of-privacy aggravating factor when “the crime caused either a continuing fear of harm in the home or involved a deliberate invas

An error affects an appellant’s substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict” and the error “affected the outcome of the case.” (quotations omitted).

“To evaluate the effect on substantial rights, [appellate courts] consider various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” State v. Parker , (quotation and citation omitted).

To determine whether misconduct significantly impacted a jury verdict, we consider “the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

“A plain error affects a defendant ’s substantial rights if it was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Parker , (quotation omitted) .

To determine whether the alleged prosecutorial misconduct significantly impacted the jury’s verdict, we consider “the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

To determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that alleged misconduct significantly affect the verdict, we consider “ the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

To determine whether the misconduct significantly impacted the jury verdict, we consider “the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

Once Moore establishes a plain error, “the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the [appellant]’s substantial rights.”

We so hold after “we [have] c onsider[ed] various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.”

-28 (Minn. 2017) (reversing our decision that the zone-of-privacy factor did not support an upw ard departure where no additional rationale provided substantial and compelling circumstances for the departure and affirming the district court’s imposition of the upward departure based solely on the zone-of- priv

If the appellant establishes pl ain error, “the burden shifts to the [s]tate to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the [appellant]’s substantial rights.”

If th e appellant establishes plain error, “the 13 burden shifts to the State to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the [appellant]’s substantial rights.”

An error affects substantial rights when “there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that the absence of the error would have had a ‘significant effect’ 5 on the jury ’s verdict.” “[T]he burden shifts to the [s]tate to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the [appellant]’s substantial rights.”

“[W]e consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” see also State v. Parker

If the appellant establishes plain error, “the burden shifts to the [s]tate to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the [appellant]’s substantial rights.”

If the appellant establishes such a plain error, “the burden shifts to the [s] tate to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the defendant’ s substantial rights.”

“To evaluate the effect on substantial rights, we consider various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” (quotations omitted).

“[I]f the [s]tate meets its burden, we need not decide whether the prosecutor committed an error that was plain.” State v. Parker

In evaluating the effect on substantial rights, this court “consider[s] various factors, including the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant.” State v. Parker , 926 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

See Minn. R. 4 If the state fails to meet this burden, this court then considers whether to address the error “to ensure fairness and the integr ity of judicial proceedings.” State v. Parker

If the state fails to establish th at the misconduct did not affect Peterson’s substantial rights, we then consider whether to address the error “to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

The first step of this test requires the defendant to “prove the existence of an error that is plain.” State v. Parker