Cited by

“An error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant e ffect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Parker , (quotations omitted).

d 917, 921–22, 926–27 (Minn. 2017) (concluding that comments made by a county attorney at a press conference more than a year before trial did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because the jurors were not aware of the statements).

State v. Parker , (quotations 5 omitted).

d 294, 297-300 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Parker , -26 (Minn. 2017) (reiterating the standard).

A plain error affects substantial rights when “it was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case, ” meaning “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jur y’s verdict.” (quotations 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.” State v. Parker , (quotations omitted).

State v. Parker , , 926 (Minn. 2017).

d 294, 297-300 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Parker , -26 (Minn. 2017) (reiterating the standard).

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

In determining whether the misconduc t affected appellant’s substan tial rights, 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.” Peltier, d at 805-06

“A plain error affects a 6 defendant’s substantial rights if it was prejudicial and affect ed the outcome of the case.” State v. Parker , (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., State v. Parker , (defendant received sentence of 480 months for intentional second-degree murder); -48 (Minn. 2012) (defendant received sentence of 406 months for intentional second-degree murder); -81 (Minn. App. 2009) (defendant received sen

If the state fails to show that the error did not affect substantial rights, then we determine if the error should be addressed to “ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Parker , , 926 (Minn. 2017).

See State v. Parker , (affirming a district court’s upward departure based on zone of privacy where the defendant shot t he victim in the victim’s home).

“Under this modified test, the defendant has the burden to prove the existence of an error that is plain.”

Guidelines 4 (2010); n.3 (Minn. 2017) (determining departure duration from top of presumptive sentencing range).

If the defendant establishes error that is plain, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate that the plain error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.”

“Under this modified test, the defendant has the burden to prove the existence of an error that is plain.”