Cited by

n.8 (Minn. 2007) (“Although the harmless error standard differs from the plain error standard, both the harmless error standard and the third prong of the plain error test consider whether the error contributed to the verdict.”).

An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious,” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), meaning the error “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

“[A]ssault statutes do not require a finding by the jury that the defendant intended to cause a specific level of harm.” overruled on other grounds by Fleck, d at 311-12, d.

“[F]ailure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.”

26 “[A]ssault statutes do not require a finding by the jury that a defendant intended to cause a specific level of harm.” overruled on other grounds by Fleck

Likewise, “failure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.” State v. Vance , d 650, 658 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck

A district court has “‘considerable latitude’ in selecting language for jury instructions.” State v. Gatson , (

see also State v. Vance , -55 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck

-59 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Fleck, d at 311 (rejecting Vance’s discussion of specific- and general-intent crimes).

erroneous instructions and [by a] verdict based on those instructions.”

“Specific intent means that the defendant acted with the intent to produce a specific result, whereas general intent means only that the defendant intentionally engaged in prohibited conduct.” (emphasis omitted).

District courts are given “considerable latitude in choosing jury instructions.” (internal quotation marks omitted).

-661 (Minn. 2007), see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 1837 (1999) (concluding that the omission of the element of “materiality” from jury consideration is subject to harmless-error analysis, and that the o

The third prong is satisfied if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” n.8 (Minn. 2007)

To accomplish those goals, “jury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense to the jury.”

The third prong is satisfied if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” n.8 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck

But failure to object will not preclude appellate review if the instructions constitute plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” State v. Vance , -55 (Minn. 2007) (citation omitted)

Appellant 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.”

The 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.” 11 n.8 (Minn. 2007)

“If the three prongs of the plain error test are met, [the appellate court] may reverse if [it] conclude[s] that reversal is required to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

Moreover, plain error affects substantial rights if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” n.8 (Minn. 2007).

d 650, 658 (Minn. 2007) (-17 (Minn. 2002)); Mahkuk, d at 682.

-59 (Minn. 2007) (stating that “jury instructions must include all elements of the offense” and that failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense is error that is plain)

Noting that Glass did not object to the instruction, the state argues that we should not entertain Glass’s “unpreserved policy argument.” “Failure to object to jury instructions before they are given generally constitutes a forfeiture of the right to an appeal based on those instructions.” d 303, 311–12 (Minn. 2012).

“[F]ailure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.”

“Plain 9 error” is “clear error affecting substantial rights that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (quotation omitted).

“[F]ailure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.”