Cited by

The reasonableness of the deputy’s probable-cause determination is “an objective inquiry,” and we consider the totality of the facts and circumstances known

See State v. Koppi , State v. Harris

(noting that probable cause exists when the totality of the circumst ances allows an officer to en tertain an honest and strong suspicion that a person has committed the crime).

-14 (Minn. 2002) (affirming an order for a new trial based on an erroneous duty-to-retreat instruction); see also State v. Koppi , (granting a new trial based on an objected-to instructional error where the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

the error had n o significant impact on the verdict.” State v. Koppi , (quotations omitted).

the error had no significant impact on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A district court must instruct a jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.” d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011).

A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case []” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.”

D E C I S I O N Jury instructions “must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case []” and cannot “materially misstate[] the appli cable law.” State v. Koppi

A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and 9 adequately explain[s] the law of the case []” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.” .

1(b) (2016); see also State v. Koppi , (“Refusing a chemical test is not a crime, therefo re, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer had probable cause to believe the person was 5 driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle w hile impaired.” (quotation omitted)).

the [stalking] statute provided” and “explained the elem ents of the crime, completely consistent with the law, the [district] court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on pattern of stalking.” (stating that jury instructions must “accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury”); (“[Appellate courts] review a district court’s decision to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”).

Probable cause exists when the “totality of the facts and circumstances known would lead a reasonable officer to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime.” (quotation omitted).

” State v. Koppi , (quotation omitted).

1(b)(1) (2016) (emphasis added).1 “Probable cause under section 169A.51, subdivision 1(b), exists whenever there are facts and circumstances known to the officer which would warrant a prudent man in believing that the individual was driving or was operating or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired.” State v. Koppi , (Mi nn.

District courts must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[ ] the applicabl e law.”

while impaired.” (quotations omitted).

The probable-cause standard we apply is “whether the totality of the facts and circumstances known would lead a reasonable officer to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime.” State v. Koppi , (quotation omitted).

We revi ew a district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, and we review the jury instructions as a whole to determine if they accurately state the law in a manner that is understandable to the jury, d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

1(b) (2016); – 64 (Minn. 2011).

-63 (Minn. 2011) (quotations and citations omitted).

The district court must provide instructions th at “fairly and adequately explain the law of the case” and must not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.” State v. Koppi

A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.”

(stating that a defendant is not entitled to a new trial if the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

State v. Koppi , , 362 (Minn. 2011).

“[T]he probable cause standard asks whether the totality of the facts and circumstances known w ould lead a reasonable officer to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime.” (quotation omitted).

“The actual, subjective beliefs of the officer are not the focus in evaluating reasonableness.”

“[Appellate courts] review a district court’ s decision to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”

This is an objective inquiry, that “depends on the totality of the circumstances of the particular case, including the credibility and veracity of the informant.”

“We review a district court’s decision to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion,” and we review the jury instructions as a whole to determine if they accurately state the law in a manner that is understandable to the jury

An error in jury instructions requires a new trial if we cannot say “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.”

Probable cause exists if “‘there are facts and circumstances known to the officer which would warrant a prudent man in believing that the individual was driving or was operating ’ or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired.” State v. Koppi , (quoting State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42, ).

We review a district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, and we review the jury instructions as a whole to determine if they accurately state the law in a manner that is understandable to the jury, d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).