Cited by

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

P. 31.02 (establishing that the plain -error standard requires defendant show: (1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected defendant’s substantial rights ); (noting that this court’s review of unobjected -to evidentiary rulings is limited to plain error).

d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

at 549 () (internal quotation marks omitted).

“If the state fails to demonstrate that substantial rights were no t affected, ‘the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the er ror to ensure fairness and th e integrity of the judicial proceedings.’” ().

See State v. Griller , d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) (explaining that appellate courts have the discretion to consider an unobjected-to error on appeal if it is a plain error affecting substantial rights).

Concluding that a confrontation clause objection was not apparent from the context of the defendant’s Rule 807 objection, we reviewed the defendant’s

d 156, 159 (Minn. App. 2012) (reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error).

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

P. 31.02; d 736, 740 (Minn. 199 8).

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

This third prong “is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

Generally, an error affects substantial rights if it “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.”

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