Cited by

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

(concluding no plain error because the supreme court had not “clearly” ruled that un-objected-to appellate issue constituted an error).

(“If we conclude that any of the requirements of the plain-error doctrine are not satisfied, we need not consider the others.”).

This “is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

In performing this analysis, we assume the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

An error is clearly contrary to law if “it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes [caselaw], a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 782, 787 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

(concluding that the district court did not plainly err by giving a jury instruction because the instruction was consistent with the pattern instruction and did “not contravene existing case law”).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious,’ which is typically established ‘if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’” (quoting Ramey, d at 302).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 782, 787 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

But we see no plain error, which is an error typically established when it is clear or obvious because it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

(“If we conclude that any of the requirements of the plain- error doctrine are not satisfied, we need not consider the others.”).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious.”

Focusing on the second prong of the plain-error standard, “[a]n error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Despite concluding there was plain error, the supreme court held that the error was not prejudicial because there was overwhelming evidence of guilt and the “battering parent syndrome” testimony reflected only a small portion of the state’s case.

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” 3 Yang appeals only the first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction.

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

In deference to the jury, we assume that it “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation 1 We note that the parties dispute the applicable standard of review.

4 This case is nonprecedential and, therefore, not binding.

“An error is plain if it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious,’ which is typically established ‘if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.’” ().

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

This testimony supports a reasonable inference of intent to terrorize because it shows that Niesen used violence by pulling the victim by her 3 We note that, although the jury-instruction guides are not binding law, n.1 (Minn. 2005), this instruction is consistent with the statute and “does not contravene existing case law,”