Cited by

“An error affects substantial rights if the error is prejudicial—that is, if there is a reasonable 9 likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002).

“[M]isstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper.” (quotation omitted).

“[M]isstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper.” (quotation omitted).

d 681, 689-90 (Minn. 2002).

(concluding that district court erred by admitting evidence that appellant was “person of bad character”).

“In the context of a criminal trial, misstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper.” (quotation omitted).

16, 2010); –88 (Minn. 2002) (holding that, when an officer testified that he knew the defendant from prior contacts and another witness stated that the defendant had killed someone and been charged for that crime, the error in eliciting this testimony was plain).

As authority for his claim

(“Because the testimony was inadmissible, the [district] court’s instruction should have been curative, rather than cautionary, and the inadmissible testimony should have been stricken.”).

in which the prosecutor made the following statement in closing argument: “When we have difficult cases like this, sometimes the only way to deal with it is just to weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, which one makes the most sense.” Id.

In State v. Strommen, the supreme court held that an officer’s testimony that they recognized the defendant from “prior contacts and incidents” can constitute plain error if the officer’s testimony was designed to suggest that the defendant “was a person of bad character who had frequent contacts with the police.” -88 (Minn. 2002).

Tarbuck argues that the officer’s -88 (Minn. 2022), and the rules of evidence.

688 (Minn. 2002) (considering whether, on prong three of plain -error review of evidentiary error, there was a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict).

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error significantly affected the verdict.” 13 (Minn. 2002).

“An error affects substantial rights if the error is prejudicial—that is, if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.”

and more like an ambiguous contact.” The district court also limited the scope of the officer’s testimony to exclude any mention of prior arrests involving Harvey, such that it served only to establish that the officer recognized Harvey in the surveillance footage and not to “suggest[] that [Harvey] was a person of bad character who had frequent contacts with the police.” -08 (Minn. App. 2018) (holding that an officer’s testimony that he knew the defendant from prior contacts, without explaining

A. Plain Error “An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted).

“[M]isstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper.” (quotation omitted).

An error is “plain” if it is “clear or obvious,” (quotation omitted), meaning it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” d 868, 872 (Minn. 2010).

“An error is plain if it was ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’” (quoting U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)).

“[M]isstatements of the burden of proof are highly improper.” (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has noted that “the rationale” for section 634.04 “is that the credibility of an accomplice is inherently untrustworthy.” d 488, 493 (Minn. 1965) (stating that one object of section 634.04 “is to provide a check upon the credibility of testimony of a person who, having been admittedly involved in criminal conduct, might be disposed to shift or diffuse responsibility”).

A prosecutor’s error is plain if it is “clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain when it is clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted).