modified plain error in Minnesota

2026At the third step of the modified plain-error test, the burden shifts to the state to show “that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” Id. (quotations omitted).

2026At the third step of the modified plain-error test, the burden shifts to the state to 10 show “that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” Id. (quotations omitted).

2026State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 146 (Minn. 2012).

2026See State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 146 (Minn. 2012); see also Minn. R.

2016State v. Wren, 738 N.W.2d 378, 389 (Minn. 2007).

2015When analyzing unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct, “we apply a modified plain error test.” Wren, 738 N.W.2d at 389 .

2024When a defendant fails to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct at trial—as Westrom did—we apply the modified plain-error test of State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 , 299–300 (Minn. 2006), under which “the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that was plain.” State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Minn. 2010).

2023“Because no objection was made, we apply the modified plain-error test outlined in Ramey,” under which “the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that was plain.” State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Minn. 2010) (citing State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 300 (Minn. 2006)).

2015“When an objection was not made to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, [appellate courts] review under a modified plain-error test.” State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn. 2009).

2014See State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 299-300 (Mipn.2006); State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Mlph.2009).

2017If the state does not meet this burden, “the court then assesses whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Id. at 302 ; see also State v. Hill, 801 N.W.2d 646, 654 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that, for prosecutorial-misconduct claims, a modified substantial-rights test is applied).

2015We reverse “only if there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Hill, 801 N.W.2d 646, 654 (Minn. 2011).

2016State v. Mosley, 853 N.W.2d 789, 801 (Minn.2014) (citing State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 299-300 (Minn.2006)).

2015“Under that test, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that is plain.” 11 State v. Mosley, 853 N.W.2d 789, 801 (Minn. 2014).

2026We note that the state refers to the standard, unmodified plain-error test and contends that Williams “has not carried his ‘heavy burden’ of establishing a reasonable likelihood that the alleged character evidence substantially affected the verdict.” (Citing Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 .) The state does not attempt to argue that it carried its burden on the third requirement of the modified plain-error test.

2023This court ordinarily reviews an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test[,]” under which “a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Myhre, 875 N.W.2d 799, 804 (Minn. 2016) (citing State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998)). 5 When a defendant does not object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, “[w]e review the prosecutor’s statements under a modified plain error analysis.” State v. Davis, 982 N.W.2d 716 , 726 (Minn. 2022).

2024McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d at 749 .

2011State v. McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d 739, 749 (Minn.2010).

2026An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious,” and the error “is clear or obvious if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” Sanchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d at 330 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023To determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s error had a significant effect on the verdict, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether 14 the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Davis, 735 N.W.2d 674, 682 (Minn. 2007).

2023To determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s error had a significant effect on the verdict, “we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether 14 the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Davis, 735 N.W.2d 674, 682 (Minn. 2007).

2023State v. Parker, 901 N.W.2d 917, 925-26 (Minn. 2017).

2023State v. Parker, 901 N.W.2d 917, 925-26 (Minn. 2017).

2023This court ordinarily reviews an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test[,]” under which “a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Myhre, 875 N.W.2d 799, 804 (Minn. 2016) (citing State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998)). 5 When a defendant does not object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, “[w]e review the prosecutor’s statements under a modified plain error analysis.” State v. Davis, 982 N.W.2d 716 , 726 (Minn. 2022).

2018See State v. Peltier , 874 N.W.2d 792 , 803 (Minn. 2016).

2016Ramey, 721 10 N.W.2d at 299.

2016“If we conclude that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, we need not consider the other prongs.” State v. Brown, 815 N.W.2d 609, 620 (Minn. 2012).

2016During closing argument, a prosecutor “may present all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.” State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569, 587 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

2015State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 329 (Minn. 2012).

2015See State v. Carridine, 812 10 N.W.2d 130, 146 (Minn. 2012) (citing State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006)).

2014Moreover, in State v. Porte this court considered whether the state waived a harmless- error argument by failing to assert it in its responsive brief and we concluded that the state’s failure to raise the argument did constitute a waiver of the issue and reversed and remanded for a new trial. 832 N.W.2d 303, 312-14 (Minn. App. 2013).

2014It is not clear that this two-tiered approach for ob-jeeted-to prosecutorial misconduct announced in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1974), remains viable after the supreme court decided State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 301 (Minn.2006), which adopted a modified plain-error analysis for unobjected-to pros-ecutorial misconduct.

2014It is not clear that this two-tiered approach for ob-jeeted-to prosecutorial misconduct announced in State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1974), remains viable after the supreme court decided State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 301 (Minn.2006), which adopted a modified plain-error analysis for unobjected-to pros-ecutorial misconduct.

2012See id.

2010State v. Jones, 772 N.W.2d 496, 506 (Minn.2009).