Cited by

(stating that unobjected-to as sertions of error are reviewed for plain error).

An error is prejudicial 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.” (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.” d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

The third prong is “a heavy burden.”

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

“[B]efore an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (1) error; ( 2) t ha t i s pl a i n; a n d ( 3) t he error must affect substantial ri ghts.” State v. Griller

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).

An error affects an appellant’s substantial rights “if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Griller , (footnote omitted).

“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were not af fected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should 6 address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().

(describing plain-error standard of review for unobjected-to errors).

State v. Strommen , , 686 (Minn. 2002) (citing State v. Griller , , 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.” d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

See State v. Griller , (reviewing an unobjected-to-issue for plain e rror).

If the three prongs of the plain-error test are met, an appellate co urt must then decide whether to “address the 4 error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

See State v. Griller , (stating that when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence, appellate courts review under the plain -error standard); see also State v. Ramey , 721 (stating that when a defendant fails to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, appellate cour

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

“Before 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.” State v. Griller