Cited by

However, even when there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, this court has “discretion to consider [the] issue on appeal if it is plain error affecting substantial rights.” Minn. R. Crim.

(d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998)).

This court ordinarily reviews 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, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” ().

P. 31.02; (determining that although the appellant “did not object to the jury instructions at trial, [appellate courts] have the discretion to consider [the] issue on appeal if it is plain error affecting substantial rights”).

(citing State v. Griller

If these three prongs are met, the remaining question is whether we must “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

(stating that the court had “discretion” to review unobjected-to jury instructions).

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

( “The third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) .

If all three prongs of the plain- error test are satisfied, we assess “whether the error should be add ressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”

But if all three prongs are satisfied, we then decide whether to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

Plain error affects substantial rights “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

404(b)(1), it may be admitted to provide the context for a police encounter or investigation, Ali, d at 249 ().

If all three prongs of the plain-error test are satisfied, the reviewing court then decides “whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

Under the plain-error standard, a defendant must establish “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”

(under plain-error standard, appellant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects appellant’s substantial rights).

And if all three prongs of the plain-error test are satisfied, we then decide whether to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

We consider this to be a heavy burden.”

See, d 736, 741 (Minn. 1998) (concluding that the appellant bears the “heavy burden” of persuasion on the issue of whether an error affected the appellant’s substantial rights); Kuhlmann, d at 844, 853 (concluding that the district court’s failure to obtain a personal waiver of the defendant’s jury trial rights whe