Cited by

“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.’” ().

If these three prongs ar e satisfied, the appellate court may then determine “whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

To meet this requirement, Cerda must show there is a “reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (quotation 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 judicial proceedings.”

An appellant’s substantial rights are affected “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (footnote omitted) (quotation omitted).

P. 31.02; State v. Griller, 5

Under the plain-error standard of review, “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

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

An appellant’s substantial rights are affected “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (footnote omitted) (quotation omitted).

“[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.”

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

2 We 1 Appellant’s argument that his guilt can be based only on his intent to commit the crime of theft because that is how the district court instructed the jury is based on a false premise.

at one point had said that you showed them child pornography on your phone?” 10 Appellant did not object to the prosecutor’s questions or the testimony elicited.1 “[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 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.’” ().

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

“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.’” ().

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

Id.; (discussing plain-error test).

As the district court correctly noted, “[e]vidence is admissibl e to give jurors the context for an investigation.”

P. 31.02; (stating that this court has discretion to consider an alleged error absent an objection if 8 there is plain error affecting the appellant’s substantial rights).

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

“[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.”