Cited by

but his reliance is misplaced.

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

d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).

Id.; see State v. Strommen , -90 (Minn. 2002) (noting that district court’s failure to instruct on accomplice was error).

“Eliciting an officer’s testimony t hat he knows the defendant from prior contacts is error if the defendant’s identity is not an issue in the case.” (emphasis added) (citin g ), review denied (Minn. Nov.

On plain-error review, the defendant bears the burden to show: “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” State v. Strommen

A defendant’s substantial rights are affected when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002).

If this test is met, “we may correct the error only if it seriously affect s the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

689-90 (Minn. 2002 ) (requiring that jury be ac curately instructed on abandonment when store’s clerk testified that defendant had told co-robber who had been trying to open the cash register, “Come on.

Under the plain-e rror test, Torres bears the bur den to show an “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).

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

to argue that the prosecutor committed misconduct by reduc ing the entire case to two versions and directing the jury to believe one or the other.

An error affects substantial rights “if ther e is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.”

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, and an error is clear or obvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,” State v. Ramey , d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

“The plain error standard requires that the [appellant] show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.”

An error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law, State v. Strommen , d 681, 688 (Minn. 2002), and an error is clear or o bvious if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct,”

“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” State v. Strommen

(citing State v. Strommen , ).

“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” State v. Strommen , (quotations omitted).

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

-16 (Minn. 2010); d 681, 689-90 (Minn. 2002) .

See, d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that “the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he misstated the state’s burden of proof and when he misstated the law on the issue of abandonment”).

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

“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) ).

See, (concluding that “the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he misstated the state’s burden of proof and when he misstated the law on the issue of abandonment ”).

in which the prosecutor urged the jury to “weigh the story in each hand and decide which one is most reasonable, which one makes the most sense.” Id.

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

“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” (citing Griller, d at 740).

State v. Strommen , Minn. R. Crim.

“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002).