Cited by

(noting that appellate courts have “the discretion to consider” an issue not raised to the district court “if it is plain error affecting substantial rights”).

affect[s] substantial rights.”

defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” ().

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

If these three prongs are met, the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (footnote omitted).

To prevail under the plain-error standard of review, an appellant must demonstrate “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”

If each prong is satisfied, we consider whether the error requires reversal to “ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

An error affects substantial rights “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Griller , 11

If the prosecutorial misconduct was plain error that affected substantial rights, “the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure 11 fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Ramey, d at 298 ().

-34 (Minn. 2011) (observing that the plain-error rule gives courts “the discretion to review an unobjected -to trial error,” and reviewing unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct during trial for plain error); -30 (Minn. App. 2017) (reviewing unobjected -to evidentiary ruling at trial for plain error); (reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error).

“The third prong, requiring that the error affect substantial rights, is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

Finally, if the prosecutorial misconduct was plain error that affected substantial rights, a reviewing court “then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” ().

affect[s] substantial rights.”

And as the state notes, “evidence is generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation.” State v. Ali , (stating evidence was properly admitted because it explained inception of the police investigation, “was inextricably intertwined with the state’s theory of the case,” and district court cautioned state to offer evidence only to extent necessary).

affect[s] substantial rights.”

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

Such an error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

(establishing that plain error leads to reversal only if the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights).

We ordinarily review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test[,]” under which “a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, 5 and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” d 799, 804 (Minn. 2016) ().