Cited by

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

35 V. Foster contends that even if the errors he has raised do not individually require a new trial, “those same errors—taken cumulatively—warrant a new trial.” A defendant may be entitled to a new trial in “rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

To determine whether the admission of relationship evidence significantly affected the verdict, appellate courts “consider [1] whether the district court provided the jury a cautionary instruction, [2] whether the State dwelled on the evidence in closing argument, and [3] whether the evidence of guilt was strong.”

We consider, among other things, “the strength of the evidence against the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

d 263, 278 (Minn. 2017) .

Cases when the cumulative effect of errors entitle a defendant to a new trial are “rare,” and involve considering both “ the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the State’s case.”

“When considering whether an error affected a def endant’s substantial rights within the context of the plain - error rule, [this court] consider[s] the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made eff orts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” (quotation omitted) .

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

In determining whether the admission of relationship evidence significantly affected the verdict, appellate courts “consider [1] whether the district court provided the 12 jury a cautionary instruction, [2] whether the State dwelled on the evidence in closing argument, and [3] whether the evidence of guilt was strong.” d 263, 274 (Minn. 2017).

In determining the effect, we 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.” (quotation omitted).

“ When considering a claim of cumulative error, [appellate courts] look to the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the State ’s case.”

“When considering whether an error affected a defendant’s substantial rights within the context of the plain-error rule, we 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.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that a defendant may be entitled to a new trial “in rare cases where the error s, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the [defendant] a fair trial” (quotation omitted) ).

“[D]ue process requires that every defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967) (“[T]he right to present a defense .

d 263, 278 (Minn. 2017) (“When considering a claim of cumulative error, [appellate courts] look to the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the State’s case.”).

In making this determination, “we consider whet her the district court provided a cautionary instruction, whether the State dwelled on the evidence in closing argument, and whether the evidence of guilt was strong.”

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“A party ‘opens the door’ when it introduces evidence tha t creates a right in the opposing party to respond with evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible.” State v. Fraga

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appel lant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“If all three requirements are met, [appellate courts] then determine whether relief is required to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

-77 (Minn. 2017) (providing that the “plain -error rule provides a limited power to correct certain errors that a defendant has forfeited” by f ailing to timely object (internal quote omitted)).

“If all three requirements are met, we then determine whether relief is required to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

“If all three requirements are met, we then determine whether relief is required to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

“An error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that it substantially affected the verdict.” State v. Fraga

-40 (Minn. 2016); -59 (Minn. 2011).

In rare cases, an appellant may be entitled to a new tr ial when “errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the defendant] a fair trial.” State v. Fraga , (quotation omitted).

See State v. Fraga , (“Because Fraga did not object to the admission of this evidence at trial, he forfeited review of his claims.”).

A new trial is only awarded “in rare cases.”

In determining whether an admission significantly affected the verdict, we consider “whether the district court provided the jury a cautionary instruction, whether the State dwelled on the evidence 13 in closing argument, and whether the evidence of guilt was strong.”

A new trial is only awarded “in rare cases.”

State v. Fraga , , 273 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted).

See State v. Fraga , (reviewing challenge under modified plain-error test when defendant did not object to prosecutor’s statements at trial).

Id.; d 263, 279 (Minn. 2017) (holding that, because the evidence of guilt was strong, the alleged errors did not deny the defendant a fair trial).