Cited by

In response, –53 (Minn. 2011).

-53 (Minn. 2011) (applying the plain-error standard to a failure to obtain a waiver of a right to a jury trial).

“Only a small 4 number of errors have been found to be structural errors.”

“Structural errors are defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by harmless-error standards.” (quotation omitted).

7 “Generally, most constitutional errors are reviewed for harmless error.”

The state “must prove each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” aff’d

-52 (Minn. 2011) (holding that district court’s “failure to obtain [the defendant’s] personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the previous-conviction elements of the charged offenses” was trial error subject to harmless-error review).

“[A] prior conviction is an element which the state must prove at trial and which defendant has a right to have a jury decide.” (quotation omitted ); WL 668011, at *3 (Minn. App. Feb.

(noting that appellate courts may consider an unobjected-to error that affects a criminal defendant’s substantial rights under plain-error analysis).

Wrongful denial of a defendant’s right to self-representation is one of “a very limited class of errors, referred to as structural errors, that require automatic reversal of a conviction.” (quotation omitted).

“Whether a criminal defendant has been denied the right to a jury trial is a constitutional question that we review de novo.” d 844, 848-49 (Minn. 2011).

“Generally, most constitutional errors are reviewed for harmless error.”

(explaining that if the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, we need 4 One way to accurately state the law in a jury instruction without using the dicta from State v. Lowe, 68 N.W.

-49 (Minn. 2011) (stating that denial of jury trial right s raises a constitutional question that is reviewed de novo).

A defendant’s right to a jury trial includes “the right to a jury determination that [he] is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kuhlmann , (quotation omitted).

d 844, 848 (Minn. 2011).

“Structural errors are defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by harmless-error standards.” (quotation omitted).

“Generally, most constitutional errors are reviewed for harmless error.”

See State v. Kuhlmann , (stating that structural errors require automatic reversal of a conviction).

While the adequacy of jury instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, “[w]hether a criminal defendant has been denied the right to a jury trial is a constitutional question that we review de novo.” -49 (Minn. 2011).

” State v. Kuhlmann , -53 (Minn. 2011).