unobjected-to error in Minnesota

2024We ordinarily review 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, 5 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)).

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).

2016“On appeal, an unobjected-to error can be reviewed only if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights.” State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 2006) (citing Minn. R.

2016See Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740 (stating that “before an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be . . . error . . . that is plain”); see also Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 302 (“An error is plain if it was clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted)).

2026State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012).

2026State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012).

2015State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844, 852 (Minn. 2011); State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).

2012“The plain error analysis allows an appellate court to consider an unobjected-to error that affects a criminal defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844, 852 (Minn.2011); see State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 787 (Minn.App.2008) (applying plain-error review to unob-jected-to failure to provide an unsolicited limiting instruction regarding use of prior convictions); Minn. R.Crim.

2014The plain-at-the-time-of-trial rule is incompatible with Johnson because it limits an appellate court’s power to address a manifest injustice to cases where the trial court should have recognized and sua sponte corrected an unobjected-to error. 10 In sum, the concurrence’s argument that the plain-at-the-time-of-trial rule is more consistent with the purpose of the plain-error doctrine lacks merit because it mischaracterizes the purpose of the plain-error doctrine and ignores the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson, 520 U.S. 461 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 .

2014The plain-at-the-time-of-trial rule is incompatible with Johnson because it limits an appellate court’s power to address a manifest injustice to cases where the trial court should have recognized and sua sponte corrected an unobjected-to error. 10 In sum, the concurrence’s argument that the plain-at-the-time-of-trial rule is more consistent with the purpose of the plain-error doctrine lacks merit because it mischaracterizes the purpose of the plain-error doctrine and ignores the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson, 520 U.S. 461 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 .

2024We ordinarily review 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, 5 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)).

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).

2014“Under this standard, we may review an unobjected-to error only if there is (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650, 655-56 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012).

2010State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650, 655 (Minn.2007).

2009State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.1998). “[BJefore an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (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).

2009State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.1998). “[B]efore an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (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).

2024State v. Vick, 632 N.W.2d 676, 685 (Minn. 2001).

2024State v. Eggert, 358 N.W.2d 156 , 161– 62 (Minn. App. 1984) (also noting that “the jury was instructed to decide the case solely on the facts before it” and that the prosecutor’s “single improper reference” in closing argument was “isolated”). 5 Here, because the state’s trial evidence was strong, the prosecutor’s misstatement was brief, the district court provided cautionary instructions to the jury, and defense counsel rebutted the prosecutor’s argument, we conclude that the misconduct did not substantially influence the jury to find Reynolds guilty. 5 Cf. State v. Davis, 735 N.W.2d 674, 682

2017See State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 548, 553 (Minn. 2010) (stating that we review an unobjected-to error for plain error, but review an error to which an objection was. made under ■ an abuse-of-discretion standard).

2016United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1228-29 (5th Cir.1986) (applying the plain-error standard when the defendant failed to object to alleged witness interference and concluding that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated); see State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814, 836 (Minn.2012) (plurality opinion) (applying the plain-error standard to the defendant’s witness-interference claim absent objection on due process grounds at trial); State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998) (explaining that when a defendant does not object, we have the discretion to consider the unobjected-t

2016State v. Gunderson, 812 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Minn. App. 2012).

2016United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1228-29 (5th Cir.1986) (applying the plain-error standard when the defendant failed to object to alleged witness interference and concluding that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated); see State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814, 836 (Minn.2012) (plurality opinion) (applying the plain-error standard to the defendant’s witness-interference claim absent objection on due process grounds at trial); State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998) (explaining that when a defendant does not object, we have the discretion to consider the unobjected-t

2016Despite these general rules, we will review an unobjected-to error, even if the error was' invited by the defendant under the plain error test. 4 See State v. Band, 654 N.W.2d 105, 113 (Minn.2002); Goelz, 743 N.W.2d at 258 .

2016Id. 8 Despite these general rules, we will review an unobjected-to error, even if the error was invited by the defendant under the plain error test.4 See State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105, 113 (Minn. 2002); Goelz, 743 N.W.2d at 258 .

2015See State v. Griffin, 846 N.W.2d 93, 105 (Minn. App. 2014) (“Because appellant did not object . . . , and the error was not one of fundamental law or controlling principle, our review is limited to the plain-error standard.”) We may review for an unobjected-to error when the error is plain and affects a defendant’s substantial rights.

2015State v. Watkins, 840 N.W.2d 21, 27-28 (Minn. 2013).

2015An error is “plain” if it is “clear or obvious” in that it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677, 686 (Minn. 2008).

2015See 8 State v. Harlin, 771 N.W.2d 46, 52 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Because appellant did not object to the instructions at trial, we review the unobjected-to instruction under the plain-error standard.”).

2014“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.” State v. Vang, ___ N.W.2d ___, 2014 WL 1805320, at *7 (Minn. 2014).

2014See State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83, 90 (Minn. 2014) (noting an appellate court has discretion to review an unobjected-to instruction if it constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights).

2014State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678 (Minn.2003).

2014We note the importance of objecting to potential hearsay evidence at trial due to the “complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions,” so a “full discussion of admissibility can be conducted at trial.” State v. Manthey, 711 N.W.2d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006).