(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Although Schneider did not object to the admissibility of the DNA evidence at trial or in his pro se brief, I believe its admission was error because the evidence lacked proper foundation. While failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial generally constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal, we do consider plain errors affecting substantial rights if the error had the effect of denying the defendant a fair trial. Compare State v. Beard, 288 N.W.2d 717, 718 (Minn.1980), with State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538, 544 (Minn.1994), and Minn. R. Evid. 103(d) (“Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors in fundamental law or of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”). “The test for determining plain error is whether there was or was not a reasonable likelihood that any error substantially affected the verdict.” Van Buren v. State, 556 N.W.2d 548, 551 (Minn.1996) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
To determine if plain error occurred in this case, we must review whether the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) complied with appropriate standards and controls when it tested the DNA evidence. See State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422, 428 (Minn.1989). Given the powerful nature of DNA evidence, at a minimum proper foundation was required to determine the reliability of the test results before the evidence was put in front of the jury. No such foundation was laid. The evidence in the record strongly suggests that the DNA tests performed by the BCA were not conducted in accordance with appropriate laboratory standards and controls. Not only did the BCA analyst who conducted the tests combine the samples from Sandburg’s abdomen and the entryway floor to perform the RFLP test even though she-acknowledged that nothing in the BCA protocol would allow her to do so, she also failed to collect a substrate sample, failed to test the reagent blank control from the shoe sample, and failed to use a blind control for each blood sample, among other possible testing errors. Thus, the DNA evidence should not have been admitted.1
*897Obviously, as a result of the erroneous admission of the DNA evidence, there is a reasonable likelihood that there was a substantial effect on the verdict because absent the DNA evidence, the evidence tying Schneider to Sandburg’s murder was extremely weak. That evidence alone, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, is not sufficient to support Schneider’s conviction. Therefore, I would reverse.
. While the record indicates that defense counsel waived a pretrial hearing on the ad*897missibility of the DNA evidence, " ‘[t]he adversary nature of the proceedings does not relieve the trial judge of the obligation of raising on his or her initiative, at all appropriate times and in an appropriate manner, matters which may significantly promote a just determination of the trial.’ ” State v. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815, 817 (Minn.1993) (quoting I ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Special Functions of the Trial Judge 6-1.1 (2d ed.1979)).