Cited by

“But the jury does not have to unanimously agree on the facts underlying an element of a crime in all cases,” and “unanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed,” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

“[T]he jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible means the defendant used to commit the offense in order to conclude that an element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (“[T]he jury does not have to unanimously agree on the facts underlying an element of a crime in all cases.”); (“[U]nanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed.” (quotation omitte

12 “Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

But “[t]he use of peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. 17 Pendleton, (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986)).

-31 (Minn. 2007) (citing Minn. R. Crim.

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

But “[t]he use of peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986)).

-29 (Minn. 2007) (“The concern weighing against admission with this factor is that the jury will use the convictions as substantive evidence, in addition to impeachment evidence.”).

No error “Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” (citing Minn. R.Crim.

“Jury verdicts in all criminal cases must be unanimous.” (citing Minn. R.Crim.

Specifically, the court must determine whether the defendant has shown that the peremptory challenge was “motivated by racial discrimination” and that the State’s proffered explanation was “merely a pretext for the discriminatory motive.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

7(3); -26 (Minn.2007) (noting that the district court did not follow Batson precedent or procedure when it did not decide whether the opponent of the peremptory strike established a prima fa-cie case but instead allowed the proponent to respond and the opponent to rebut that response).

(“If credibility is a central issue in the case, the fourth and fifth Jones factors weigh in favor of admission of the prior convictions.” (quotation omitted)).

() (internal quotation marks omitted).

Generally, “[a] party is prohibited from assigning as error any portion of the charge or omission unless the party objects to the instructions before they are given to the jury.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that “[w]e give great deference to the district court’s ruling on a Batson challenge, recognizing that the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the [district] court may consider”); (stating that appellate courts give c

We afford great deference because “the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.”

(stating that state’s peremptory challenge to veniremember based on possible sympathy to defendant’s case was “a permissible use of its challenges”); (upholding state’s peremptory challenge that was based on three race-neutral reasons involving “lack of e

We have acknowledged that the district court’s ruling on a Batson challenge is to be given “great deference” because “the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.”