to a remedy.” Id. at 518 (quoting Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 323 (Minn.1996)). If these three prongs are met, the court must then decide whether it should address the issue in order to “ensure fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings.” Griller, 583 N.W.2d. at 742. Only after all these factors are satisfied may an appellate court exercise its discretion to correct an unob-jected-to error. Id. Here, the claimed error involves admission of Ms. Thomson’s testimony regarding her husband and her testimony regarding the sequestration. Appellant states that the “spark-of-life evidence” was excessive. Evidence concerning the life of a homicide victim is relevant and admissible to show the victim as a human being. See generally State v. Carney, 649 N.W.2d 455, 463 (Minn.2002) (<HOLDING>); State v. Buggs, 581 N.W.2d 329, 342
holding photograph showing victim with his family photograph fell within the prosecutors latitude in showing victim and was not unduly prejudicial holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim holding that because the photograph of the victim was for identification purposes only and the victims military service was never discussed at trial even if the photograph did evoke sympathy from the jury it was not reversible error to admit it holding that a photograph of the body of the victim at the scene was relevant and admissible because it illustrated clarified and corroborated the testimony of various witnesses holding that a photograph of the hands of the murder victim tied behind her back was properly admitted because it showed the considerable pain inflicted upon the victim by the defendant