Cited by

See Gilleylen, d at 277-78; d 539, 553 (Minn. 2009).

fendant is entitled to a specific instruction if the trial evidence supports the instruction and the substance of the proposed instruction is not already contained in 10 instructions chosen by the district court.” (–48 (Minn. 2011); ), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

3 (stating that a reply brief must be confined to new matter raised in respondent’s brief)

Further, “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted).

(“[E]rrors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.”) ( ).

1, 2; Minn. Stat. § 609.195(b); -63 (Minn. 2009) (affirming conviction of first-degree murder under aiding-and-abetting theory when appellant fired shots at group of people and but argued that he fled scene before victim was shot and killed).

A defendant “is entitled to a new trial if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying [the defendant] a fair trial.” State v. Yang , (quotation omitted).

d 539, 558 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that a matter raised for first time in reply brief is waived and should be stricken); see also Minn. R. Civ.

(recognizing that demonstrated errors, “when taken cumulatively,” may have the effect of “ denying [the] appellant a fair trial”).

(concluding that a matter raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived and should be stricken); see also Minn. R. Civ.

If they do, they are in trouble and if they do not then they are still in trouble.” “An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” 25 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).

“[An] appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the ‘errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.’” ().

A defendant “is entitled to a new trial if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying [the defendant] a fair trial.” (quotation omitted); (noting that a reviewing court need not determine whether an error standing alone would warrant a new trial if the “errors, taken cumulatively, deprived the appellant of his right to a fair trial”).

“[An] appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the ‘errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [th e] appellant a fair trial.’” ().

1 (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (d 539, 552 (Minn. 2009))).

d 539, 560 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).

Instead, we review whether these “errors, when taken cumulatively, ha[d] the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.” (alteration in original) ().

“We evaluate a district court’s refusal to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”

Similarly, in State v. Yang, the supreme court upheld the stop of a “dark-blue Honda Civic hatchback” when the suspect vehicle was a “black four-door Honda-type vehicle.” 552 (Minn. 2009).

When we have “upheld restrictions on cross-examining codefendants about the number of years that their sentences were reduced by pleading guilty,” we considered whether the district court allowed cross-examination “on other aspects of the plea agreement.”

A defendant “is entitled to a new trial if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying [him] a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

3 (providing that an appellant’s “reply brief must be confined to new matter raised in the brief of the respondent”); (declining to address claim raised for the first time in a reply brief).

Further, “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted).

” Andersen, d at 915 ().

An appellant may be entitled to a new trial if “errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.”

“A party is entitled to a specific jury instruction if evidence exists at trial to support the instruction.” 13

Similarly, in State v. Yang, the supreme court upheld the stop of a dark blue Honda, when the suspect vehicle was a black “Honda -type vehicle.” 552 (Minn. 2009).

v. Anda , Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A.

An appellant may be entitled to a new trial if the cumulative impact of several errors taken together “had the effect of de nying [the] appellant a fair trial.” State v. Yang , (quotation omitted).

“In determining whether a sentence has exaggerated the criminality of a defendant's conduct, [appellate courts] take guidance from past sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants.” See State v. Yang