Cited by

When the appellant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain -error doctrine, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[ ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)).

When there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, the appellate court has discretion to “consider a claim of error on appeal if there was plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law in the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted); -08 (Minn. 2012).

-39 (Minn. 2001); see also Minn. R. Crim.

If the first three prongs are met, this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

If Ross satisfies all prongs, this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Crowsbreast , (quotation omitted).

State v. Crowsbreast , , 437 (Minn. 2001) (quotation omitted).

But “we have discretion to consider a c laim of error on appeal if there was plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law in the jury instructions.” State v. Crowsbreast , (M inn.

See Pendleton , d at 732 (stating that the three kidnapping purposes available to the jury were "not so inherently distinct as to violate due process"); Ihle , d at 919 (stating that the alternative statutory types of conduct were not so dissimilar "as to result in fundamental unfairness"); see also State v. Crowsbreast , , 439 (Minn. 2001) ("The grouping of past acts of domestic abuse as a preliminary factual element of domestic abuse homicide ...

If the appellant satisfies all prongs , this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” d 433, 437 (Minn. 2001) (quotation omitted).

If the first three prongs are met, this court “ may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Crowsbreast , .

State v. Crowsbreast , d 433, 437 (Minn. 2001).

If the appellant meets his burden and satisfies the three plain-error prongs, this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

If the first three prongs are satisfied, this court “may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997)).

(alteration in original) ().

(alteration in original) ().

If he meets these three prongs, we may reverse his conviction to correct the error only if it has an effect on ‘“the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”’ (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997)).

State v. Crowsbreast , see Minn. R. Crim.

-39 (Minn. 2001); see also Minn. R. Crim.

“If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if [(4)] it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding s.” State v. Strommen , ( (quotation omitted) ).

State v. Crowsbreast , (M inn.

Under that analysis, the defendant must show “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”

“If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Strommen, d at 686 ().

An appellate court may correct an unobjected-to error only if: “(1) th ere is error; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affect s the defendant’s substantial rights.”

But appellate courts have discretion to consider a claim of unobjected-to error “if there was plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law in the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

16 establishes these three prongs, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997))

" (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467).

If all three of these requirements are met, we then assess whether reversal is required to ensure “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 9 judicial proceedings.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)).