reasonable likelihood error in Minnesota

2024Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 . “[A]n error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” Vance, 734 N.W.2d at 656 .

2017The third element is satisfied if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error “had a significant effect on the verdict.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 741 (Minn. 1998) (quotation omitted).

2024Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 . “[A]n error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” Vance, 734 N.W.2d at 656 .

2017Appellant satisfies this prong of the analysis if he shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the [district court’s] verdict.” State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012). 4 Appellant asserts that D.P.D.’s testimony was prejudicial because it was unsworn testimony and “the district court’s post-testimony consultation with D.P.D.” did not satisfy rule 603.

2026But under the plain-error standard, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the error affected his substantial rights, and it is a “heavy burden.” See State v. Sontoya, 788 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Minn. 2010) (stating that “[p]lain error is prejudicial when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict” and that “[t]he defendant bears a heavy burden of persuasion on this prong”) (quotations omitted)).

2024An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Sontoya, 788 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Minn. 2010).

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).

2024Matthews, 800 N.W.2d at 634 (explaining that the analysis of whether a plain error affected a defendant’s substantial rights is equivalent to harmless-error analysis, such that “[a] plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict” (quotation omitted)).

2016Plain error “affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 809 (Minn. 2012) (quotations omitted).

2014An error affects substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 809 (Minn. 2012) (quotations omitted).

2016Here, we conclude that the inadvertent disclosure of evidence during trial did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. “[A]n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ on the verdict.” State v. Finch, 865 N.W.2d 696, 703 (Minn. 2015) (quoting State v. Sontoya 788 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Minn. 2010)).

2016Put another way, an error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict.” State v. Finch, 865 N.W.2d 696, 703 (Minn. 2015) (quotations and citation omitted); see also State v. Matthews, 800 N.W.2d 629, 634 (Minn. 2011) (stating that “[a] plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable 7 likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict” and explaining that this analysis “is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis” (quotation omitted)).

2014“To show that the error affected substantial rights, the defendant bears the heavy burden of 7 showing that the error was prejudicial—that is, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” State v. Burg, 648 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Minn. 2002) (quotation omitted).

2014“To show that the error affected substantial rights, the defendant bears the heavy burden of showing that the error was prejudicial—that is, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” State v. Burg, 648 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Minn. 2002) (quotation omitted).

2015An error affects substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” Id. at 824 .

2015An error affects substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.” Id. at 824 (quotation omitted). 5 The rules of evidence do not apply at a sentencing proceeding without a jury.1 Minn. R.

2016We next consider whether the district court’s erroneous instruction affected appellant’s substantial rights. “[A]n error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” Vance, 734 N.W.2d at 656 ; see Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (stating that the defendant bears the 5 “heavy” burden of persuasion on the third prong of the plain-error test).

2009State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 299-300, 302 (Minn.2006). “[E]rror affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn.2007).

2026An error affects the defendant’s substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood the error had a significant effect on the verdict.” State v. Davis, 820 N.W.2d 525, 535 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017State v. Davis, 820 N.W.2d 525, 535 (Minn. 2012).

2016“Plain error is considered prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Young, 710 N.W.2d 272, 280 (Minn. 2006) (quotations omitted).

2007See State v. Young, 710 N.W.2d 272, 280 (Minn.2006) (quotation marks omitted).

2016“An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that the instruction had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” State v. Davis, 864 N.W.2d 171, 178 (Minn. 2015).

2016“An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that the instruction had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” State v. Davis, 864 N.W.2d 171, 178 (Minn. 2015).

2015“Error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” State v. Barrientos–Quintana, 787 N.W.2d 603, 611 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

2014“To prevail on the third prong of the plain-error test, [the appellant] bears the heavy burden of showing prejudice, which means there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” State v. Barrientos-Quintana, 787 N.W.2d 603, 612 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

2006Id. at 688 (citing State v. Smith, 582 N.W.2d 894, 896 (Minn.1998)).

2006Id. at 688 (citing State v. Smith, 582 N.W.2d 894, 896 (Minn. 1998)).

2015Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error[s] had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” Vang, 847 N.W.2d at 261 .

2015Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error[s] had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” Vang, 847 N.W.2d at 261 .

2024Id.

2015Id.

2002See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ; Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741 ; State v. Glidden, 455 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Minn.1990).

2002Id.

2026Hanners bears the burden “to establish a reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the wrongfully admitted testimony not come in.” State v. Jaros, 932 N.W.2d 466, 472 (Minn. 2019).

2017Farah cites State v. Litzau, which states that “[w]here the evidence was aimed at having an impact on the verdict, we cannot say the verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” 650 N.W.2d 177, 184 (Minn. 2002).

2016State v. Davis, 735 N.W.2d 674, 682 (Minn. 2007).

2016See id. at 365-66 ; State v. Little, 851 N.W.2d 878, 887-88 (Minn. 2014) (stating that on harmless-error review “the State bears the burden of showing that [constitutional] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” while on plain-error review the appellant must prove “a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict, regardless of whether the error resulted in a constitutional violation”).

2016State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn. 2001).

2016To show his 5 substantial rights were affected, a defendant must establish that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 782 (Minn. App. 2008).

2016See id. at 365-66 ; State v. Little, 851 N.W.2d 878, 887-88 (Minn. 2014) (stating that on harmless-error review “the State bears the burden of showing that [constitutional] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” while on plain-error review the appellant must prove “a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict, regardless of whether the error resulted in a constitutional violation”).