Cited by

When, as is the case here, a defendant “fail[s] to object at trial to the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct, we review the issue under a modified plain-error standard.”

(“On plain error review, speculation as to prejudice is not sufficient.”); (“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant

We may consider the strength of the state’s case against the defendant when determining prejudice, and the evidence here pointed overwhelmingly to Smith’s guilt.

See, (strength); (frequency); (acquittals).

And a n error is prejudicial and affects a defendant’s substantial rights “ if there is a reasonable likelihood” that the error “had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

But the erroneous admission of a statement can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when it does not amount to a confession , and other evidence of guilt is strong, ; ( holding that erroneously admitted statements, including a reference to “my victim,” were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the statements did not amount to a confession and there was overwhelming independent evidence of guilt), or when

(stating that if an alleged error is constitutional in nature, the state must prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

A defendant’s substantial rights are affected if “there is a r easonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury 8 verdict.” State v. Johnson , (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted).

“If plain error is established, the defendant bears a heavy burden of showing that substan tial rights have been affected.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted).

A defendant’s substantial rights are affected if “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (quotation omitted).

An erroneous jury instruction affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “ ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.’ ” ().

-47 (Minn. 2018); State v. Washington