Cited by

See Santiago, d at 445–46, 450-51 (considering first whether district court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to sever and then whether the denial of that motion was harmful); (stating the first prong of a plain error analysis is that there was an error).

5 substantial rights.” ().

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

(), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

See State v. 17 Griller, (stating that the court had “discretion” to review unobjected-to jury instructions).

d 519, 528 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted); () (noting that the fairness-and-integrity prong is not met when a new trial would be futile and waste judicial resources); Kelley, d at 457.

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

Pulczinski, d at 356 ().

( (Minn. 2 Spotts also argues that the district court erred by alternatively concluding his “conduct could be considered an activity that people do for pleasure when they are not working, and, in turn, [he] was required to notify the agent or authority of the .

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998); Minn. R. Crim.

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466–67 (1997).

"If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, 'the appellate court then assesses 10 whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings."' ().

(stating that the defendant bears the burden on the substantial-rights prong).

“In order to meet the plain error standard, a criminal defendant must sho w that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” ().

t three, first-degree criminal sexual conduct against victim 2, must be reversed because (1) “the jury’s ‘particular cruelty’ special-verdict finding does not apply to co unt III,” and (2) “the jury’s special-verdict findings are inadequate to support the aggravated sentence.” Because Gutierrez did not object to the special-verdict interrogatory, we review for plain error.7

See State v. Griller , d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

“When prosecutorial misconduct is not alleged, the defendant has the burden of proving (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.” ().

(footnotes and quotation omitted).

If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not affected, “the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).