Cited by

(concluding that admission of evidence was plain error because that evidence “was clearly irrelevant and highly prejudicial” under Minn. R. Evid.

d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).

“An error is plain if it was ‘clear ’ or ‘obvious,’” and plain error may be demonstrated “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Ramey, d at 302 () .

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

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

We are not persuaded otherwise by Jones’s

It can be plain error for a prosecutor to elicit testimony from an officer about knowing a defendant from “prior contacts and incidents.” -89 (Minn. 2002) (holding that it was plain error to elicit statements from a police officer regarding prior contacts with the defendant when identity was not at issue and another witness testified that the defendant had been charged for killing someone).

Period.” A prosecutor’s misstatement of the burden of proof is “highly improper.” State v. Strommen , (quotation omitted).

() (other quotation omitted).

(stating that for evidentiary errors not preserved with an objection, an appellant must show “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights”).

In doing so, we relied on State v. Strommen, in which the supreme court determined that an arresting officer’s testimony that he recognized the appellant from “prior contacts and incidents” consti tuted plain error; the supreme court noted that the appellant’s “identity does not appear to have been an issue in this case.” -88 (Minn. 2002).

(reversing and remanding when the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law and the burden of proof denied the defendant a fair trial).

We disagree with Thompson’s argument that the prosecutor’s statements were similar to those in State v. Strommen, where the supreme court concluded that a prosecutor misstated the state’s burden of proof by telling the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, which one makes the most sense.” (quotation omitted).

An error affects the defendant’s substantial rights “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002); (“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”).

(reviewing unobjected-to admission of a police officer’s testimony about a victim’s prior out-of-court statement for plain error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights); (explaining that plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict).

This is because accomplice testimony, which may be motivated by a promise of immunity or other suspect reasons, is “inherently untrustworthy .”

That’s not a reasonable position to take at trial.” Sandven relies on State v. Strommen where the supreme court determined the prosecuting attorney committed plain error by arguing, “ [w]hen 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.”

hat this error affected her substantial rights because the May 2019 incident was the “sole alleged violation,” but for which “the court would not have revoked [her] stay of adjudication and entered a conviction.” “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.”

-90 (Minn. 2002) (addressing mi sstatements of law on abandonment and burden of proof) ; State v. Shannon , -92 (Minn. 1994) (addressing misstatement of elements of heat -of-passion manslaughter).

6 Vetsouvanh, argues that the district court’s cautionary instruc tion “exacerbated the po tential” to improperly influence the jury.

(“As a rule, [district] courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider a ny witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.”).

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”

Evidence is relevant if it ha s “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” -87 (Minn. 2002) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).

The plain-error standard requires Carbajal to show: “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”

See, -90 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that prosecutor engaged in misconduct by misstating the law).

See Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding 5 the prosecutor stated during closing: “ When we have difficult cases like this, sometimes the only way to deal with [difficult cases] is just to weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, which one makes the most sense.”

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

Under the pl ain-error standard, a defendant must show “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”

See, e.g., State v. Strommen, 7 (telling the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, whi ch one makes the most sense ”); (saying that the presumption of innocence is a shield for the innocent but not a cloak for the guilty); State v. Trim

He cites State v. Strommen , in which the supreme court concluded that the prosecutor misstated the sta te’s burden of proof by telling the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, which one makes the most sense.” Id.

A defendant’s substantial rights are affected when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error subst antially affected the verdict.”

State v. Strommen , , 689 (Minn. 2002).