Cited by

(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).

See, (determining that granting a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct “would be an exercise in futility”).

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

See State v. Griller , (holding that errors not preserved with a trial objection are reviewed under the plain-error standard of review).

7 “The United States Supreme Court has established a three-prong test for plain error.”

If all three elements are satisfied, “[we] then assess[] whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

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.” (footnotes omitted).

If Ineh satisfies all three prongs, 13 this court will then assess “whe ther it should address the erro r to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

However, “before an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to-error,” that error must “affect s ubstantial rights.” State v. Griller

A party seeking relief based on plain error must demonstrate “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”

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

A reviewing court “will only overtur n a lower court’s evidentiary ruling if that court abused its discretion.” State v. Griller

(setting out the three prongs of the plain-error test).

P. 31.02; State v. Griller , d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

“[B]efore an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”

“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.” (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1550 (1997)).

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

State v. Griller , (describing plain -error test for evaluating an assertion of error not raised before the district court).

“The presumption of innocence is a basic component of the fundamental right to a fair trial.” State v. Bowles

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.” d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) (footnote omitted).

“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 judicia l proceedings.”

P. 31.02 (providing that appellate courts may review for plain error even if the issue 8 was not brought to the district court’s attention) ; State v. Griller , (stating that appellate courts have discretion to consider plain error affecting substantial rights).

See State v. Griller , see also Ramey, d at 299.

If those elements are met, appellate cour ts consider “whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”