plain error in Minnesota

2026To establish plain error, “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.” Id. 2 A defendant demonstrates that a plain error affected their substantial rights by showing that “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

2026The plain-error exception allows an appellate court to review an error that was not objected to at trial if the district court committed “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 , 466–67 (1997)).

2024But see State v. Chauvin, 989 N.W.2d 1 , 32 n.8 (Minn. App. 2023) (“The supreme court has questioned whether this two-tiered approach is still good law, while declining to decide the question.”), rev. denied (Minn. July 18, 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 427 (2023). “[I]n cases involving unusually serious prosecutorial misconduct,” appellate courts have “required certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct was harmless before affirming.” State v. Caron, 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (Minn. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 , 298-99, 299 n.4 (Minn. 2006) (ob

2024If there is a plain error, the burden shifts to the state, 5 which must 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. at 302 (quotation omitted).

2017“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002) (citing Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740 (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1548-49 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997))).

2017“The plain-error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected substantial rights.” State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d 681, 686 (Minn.2002). *412 “The admissibility of expert testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Hall, 406 N.W.2d 503, 505 (Minn.1987).

2026See Brown, 815 N.W.2d at 620 (“If we conclude that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, we need not consider the other prongs.”). 9

2026But if an appellate court “conclude[s] that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, [it] need not consider the other prongs.” Brown, 815 N.W.2d at 620 .

2024Only if we conclude that the court committed a plain error do we consider whether that error affected the defendant’s substantial rights and whether we must “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740 . “[F]ailure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.” State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650, 658 (Minn. 2007).

2017The third prong of the plain-error test is satisfied if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” See State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650 , 660 n.8 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012).

2016If the appellant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error doctrine, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” State v. Crows- *523 breast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn.2001) (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 ).

2015If the defendant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error test, “we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn.2001) (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 ) (alteration in original); accord State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804, 811 (Minn.2013).

2025Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 732-33 (Minn. 2011) (observing that the plain-error rule gives appellate courts “the discretion to review an unobjected-to trial error” and reviewing unobjected-to jury instruction); see also State v. Turner, No. A24-0219, 2025 WL 368539 , at *6 (Minn. App. Feb. 3, 2025) (observing that “plain-error review is generally reserved for unobjected-to trial errors” and listing supreme court opinions (emphasis omitted)). 5 The statute of limitations provides an affirmative defense that is not jurisdictional.

2017Under the plain error rule, “if we find that any one of the requirements is not satisfied, we need not address any of the others.” Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 732 (Minn.2011).

2016P. 31.01 (“Any error that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”), .02 (“Plain error affecting a substantial right can be considered by the court . . . on appeal even if it was not brought to the trial court’s attention.”); State v. Reed, 737 N.W.2d 572 , 583–84 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that under both harmless-error review and plain-error review, error is not reversible unless it affected defendant’s substantial rights).

2015Plain error exists if the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Reed, 737 N.W.2d 572, 583 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

2017Under the plain-error test, we consider whether the district court’s instructions contained “an (1) error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Id.

2017The plain-error test requires that we determine “whether the jury instructions contained an (1) error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012).

2026“To establish a plain error a defendant must demonstrate that (1) there was an error, (2) it was plain, and (3) it affected substantial rights.” Id.

2015State v. Goelz, 743 N.W.2d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007); see also State v. Atkinson, 774 N.W.2d 584, 596 (Minn. 2009) (proceeding directly to the third prong and considering only whether the alleged plain error was prejudicial).

2026In addressing the substantial rights prong of the plain error test in State v. Watkins, we said that “[t]he reviewing court may consider, among other factors, whether: (1) the defendant contested the omitted element and submitted evidence to support a contrary finding, (2) the State submitted overwhelming evidence to prove that element, and (3) the jury’s verdict nonetheless encompassed a finding on that element.” 840 N.W.2d 21, 29 (Minn. 2013).

2016See Watkins, 840 N.W.2d at 28-29 . 7 Because we conclude that the three prongs of the plain-error test are not satisfied, we do not address whether a new trial is required to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.

2024To prevail under the plain-error standard, “the appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” Id. at 273-74 .

2024“Under the plain-error doctrine, the appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” Id. at 273-74 .

2015“An error affects substantial rights if the 4 error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d at 853 . “[O]nly if all three prongs of the plain error rule are met will a court order a new trial and then only if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 732 (Minn. 2011) (quoting State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn. 2001)).

2014See id. (noting that the defendant benefited from the stipulation because it prevented evidence of his criminal history from being presented to the jury). 4 In sum, even if the district court did not obtain a proper waiver, the error did not affect Palmer’s substantial rights, and it therefore does not provide a basis to reverse under the plain-error standard.

2016To prevail on the third prong of the plain-error test, Bellanger must show that “there is a reasonable likelihood that [the failure to give the instruction] had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” Barrientos-Quintana, 787 N.W.2d at 612 (quotation omitted).

2016To show that plain error affected his substantial rights, an appellant “bears the heavy burden of showing prejudice, which means there [must be] a reasonable likelihood that [the plain error] had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” State v. Barrientos-Quintana, 787 N.W.2d 603, 612 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted).

2016If the first three requirements of the plain- error test are satisfied, appellate courts then consider whether the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Washington, 693 N.W.2d 195, 204 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

2016If the first three requirements of the plain-error test are satisfied, an appellate court considers whether the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Washington, 693 N.W.2d 195, 204 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

2024To succeed based on plain error, Hunter must prove that (A) there was a plain error, (B) the error affected his substantial rights, and (C) the error “seriously affects the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings.” State v. Little, 851 N.W.2d 878, 884 (Minn. 2014).

2016When applying the plain error test, we determine whether “there was (1) an error (2). that was plain (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Little, 851 N.W.2d 878, 884 (Minn.2014) (citing State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998)).

2026We weigh several “[n]on-exclusive factors . . . to determine whether a reasonable possibility exists that the erroneously admitted evidence significantly affected the jury’s verdict.” State v. Bigbear, 10 N.W.3d 48 , 54 (Minn. 2024) (applying harmless-error review); see also Matthews, 800 N.W.2d at 634 (“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”).

2026“A plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” State v. Matthews, 800 N.W.2d 629, 634 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

2025Even if we were to conclude that the plain error affected appellant’s substantial rights, we cannot conclude that the circumstances presented would “cause the public to seriously question the fairness and integrity of our judicial system.” Pulczinski, 972 N.W.2d at 359; see also State v. Huber, 877 N.W.2d 519, 528 (Minn. 2016) (“[T]he fourth prong is satisfied only in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (quotation omitted)).

2024“Although the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings is sometimes served by ordering a new trial when a defendant’s substantial rights were affected by a plain error, that is not always the case.” State v. Huber, 877 N.W.2d 519, 527 (Minn. 2016).

2026The plain-error exception allows an appellate court to review an error that was not objected to at trial if the district court committed “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 , 466–67 (1997)).

2017“The plain error standard requires that the defendant show: (1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected substantial rights.” State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002) (citing Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740 (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1548-49 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997))).

2026The supreme court also applied the plain-error rule in State v. Carridine to the district court’s provision of a self-defense jury instruction even though the defendant 13 had requested that instruction. 812 N.W.2d 130, 142-44 (Minn. 2012).

2024Similarly, “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party cannot assert on appeal an error that [they] invited or that could have been prevented at the district court,” but “[t]he invited 7 error doctrine does not apply, however, if an error meets the plain error test.” State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 142 (Minn. 2012). “[T]o meet the plain error standard, 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).

2019But, under the plain-error doctrine, an appellate court has the discretion to consider a forfeited issue if the defendant establishes (1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. 5 Id. ; see State v. Matthews , 779 N.W.2d 543 , 548 (Minn. 2010).

2016“Under the plain-error test, an appellant must show that there was (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” Id.

2026See, e.g., State v. Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d 849, 863 (Minn. 2008) (observing that we apply the plain-error analysis to a constitutional challenge or evidentiary question that has been otherwise forfeited by a failure to object).

2014Instead, the Johnson Court expressly found the defendant had “satisfied” the “error” and “plainness” prongs of the plain error doctrine. 520 U.S. at 467-68 . 12 Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d at 863 (involving a case in which the law had not changed during the pendency of the appeal); Arredondo v. State, 754 N.W.2d 566, 574 (Minn. 2008) (same); State v. Manthey, 711 N.W.2d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006) (same); State v. (Footnote continued on next page.) 21 analysis.

2016See State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105, 113-14 (Minn. 2002) (affirming an order for a new trial based on an unobjected-to, erroneous duty-to-retreat instruction under the plain-error test).

2014A. In State v. Baird, we considered whether a defendant could satisfy the second prong of the plain-error doctrine by establishing the error was plain at the time of the appeal where the law was unsettled at trial but settled in favor of a defendant during the pendency of the appeal. 654 N.W.2d 105, 113 (Minn.2002).

2016Evid 103 committee cmt. 1989 (noting “the existing practice of requiring not only a timely objection, but a specific objection unless the context of the question makes the grounds for objection obvious”); see also State v. Manthey, 711 N.W.2d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006) (noting because of the “complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions,” objections are particularly critical to give a party an “opportunity to establish that some or all of the statements were admissible under one of the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule”). “[U]nder the plain-error doctrine, w

2014Instead, the Johnson Court expressly found the defendant had “satisfied” the “error” and “plainness” prongs of the plain error doctrine. 520 U.S. at 467-68 . 12 Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d at 863 (involving a case in which the law had not changed during the pendency of the appeal); Arredondo v. State, 754 N.W.2d 566, 574 (Minn. 2008) (same); State v. Manthey, 711 N.W.2d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006) (same); State v. (Footnote continued on next page.) 21 analysis.

2016As we explained in Bustos , a plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights, without more, is insufficient to warrant a new trial. 861 N.W.2d at 663 -64 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)).

2016As we explained in Bustos , a plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights, without more, is insufficient to warrant a new trial. 861 N.W.2d at 663 -64 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)).

2023If the first three prongs of the plain-error test are satisfied, “we may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotations omitted).

2023The plain-error standard requires the appellant “to establish (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects the [appellant’s] substantial rights.” State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275, 279 (Minn. 2015).

2023“Notably, a negative answer to any one of the three parts of the plain error doctrine may end our analysis and a defendant’s quest for relief.”3 Id. (citing State v. Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677, 689 (Minn. 2008) (granting no relief for the defendant because the alleged error could not have been plain); State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910, 917-19 (Minn. 2002) (analyzing the underlying legal questions and finding no error) (other citation omitted)); see also Davis, 982 N.W.2d at 727 (analyzing only the first prong—whether there was an error—and holding that, “[b]ecause the prosecutor’s statements [in closin

2017The first element of the plain-error test “requires that we determine whether the instructions were in error.” State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Minn. 2002).

2026To establish plain error, “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.” Id. 2 A defendant demonstrates that a plain error affected their substantial rights by showing that “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

2025“In order to meet the plain error standard, 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)).

2019Under our precedent, "[a]n error is plain if it 'contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.' " State v. Hayes , 831 N.W.2d 546 , 555 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Ramey , 721 N.W.2d 294 , 302 (Minn. 2006) ).

2013An appellate court “will order a new trial only if all three prongs of the plain error standard are satisfied and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[District courts have latitude” and “broad discretion in determining jury instructions.” State v. Hayes, 831 N.W.2d 546, 555 (Minn.2013) (quotation omitted) (stating during plain-error analysis).