Cited by

(d 413, 422 (Minn. 2006) (“Failure to request specific jury instructions or to object to instructions given generally results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal.”)).

(“Failure to request specific jury instructions or to object to instructions given generally results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal.”).

The State presents three arguments, which we address in turn.11 (affirming conviction of second -degree intentional murder when the defendant “pointed the gun at [the victim’s] head and fired from close range”); d 413, 423 (Minn. 2006) (affirming conviction of first-degree premeditated murder when the defendant “took a loaded gun from under the seat of his vehicle, .

But we have discretion to consider a district court’s failure to give a jury instruction if the failure constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights.” State v. Goodloe , (citations omitted).

“Failure to request specific jury instructions or to object to instructions given generally results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal.”

“A defendant’s failure to object to instructions before they are given generally results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal.”

(“The element of premeditation differentiates first-degree premeditated murder from second-degree intentional murder.”).

A 1 A full recitation of the facts regarding the murder and Goodloe’s –18 (Minn. 2006).

See State v. Goodloe , , 422 (Minn. 2006) ("Failure to request specific jury instructions or to object to instructions given generally results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal.").

See State v. Goodloe , , 422 (Minn. 2006) (requiring only "a short period of time" for premeditation); see also State v. Galvan , , 671 (Minn. 2018) (noting that two close-range gunshots to the head constituted "execution-style" killing and supported a finding of premeditation); State v. Clark , , 422-23 (Minn.

The state need not “present evidence from each o f the three categories relevant to premeditation in order to support a finding of premeditation.” n.4 (Minn. 2006).

(citation omitted); see also State v. Goodloe , , 422 (Minn. 2006) ("[E]ven a 'short period of time' constitutes 'some appreciable time.'

And, as the district court instructed the jury here, “[p]remeditation, by definition, requires some amount of time to pass between formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act.” (emphasis added); (explaining that premeditation requires the State to “prove that before the commission of the act- but after the defendant formed the intent to kill some appreciable time passed during which the defendant considered, planned, or prepared to commit the act” (emphasis added)).

n.6 (noting that failure to request a jury instruction is a forfeiture, rather than a waiver, of the right to object to the omission of that instruction on appeal).

d at 734; (characterizing the defendant’s retrieval of the murder weapon from one room and bringing it to another as planning activity); (holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation where the defendant arrived at the murder scene with a loaded gun, “procured the gun from under the driver’s seat upon leaving the vehicle, and approached [the victim] with the gun extended in front of him”).

423 & n. 7 (Minn.2006) (“While it is theoretically possible that the jury could have believed all of the state’s evidence except the evidence relevant to premeditation, we cannot discern any rational basis for the jury to have done so.”).

Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal procedure or are challenges to the constitutionality of a statute”); , 422 n. 6 (Minn.2006) (explaining that the term “forfeiture” most accurately described the effect of failing to bring an alleged error to the attention of the district court).

834 (1944)); (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal procedure or are challenges to the constitutionality of a statute”); , 422 n. 6 (Minn.2006) (explaining that the term “forfeiture” most accurately described the effect of failing to bring an alleged error to the attention of the district court).

Mosley failed to object to the identification testimony on the ground that the testimony should have been excluded under Rule 403, and therefore Mosley forfeited the right to raise the issue on appeal, subject to the application of the plain-error doctrine.2

We rejected a similar challenge to CRIMJIG 11.02

A district court has considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions, and in selecting language for jury instructions