Cited by

Minnesota law “clearly mandat[es] that the general self-defense instruction be given in cases where the defendant claims the death was an unintended or accidental consequence of actions taken in defense of self.” d 130, 143-44 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that the justifiable -taking-of-life instruction was given in error when the defendant’s defense was that the death was unintended).

State v. Carridine , , 144 (Minn. 2012).

See n.2 (Minn. 2016); (applying standard for “unusually serious” misconduct without deciding the continued applicability of the Caron test).

-44 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that the justifiable-taking-of-life instruction was given in error where the defendant’s defense was that the death was unintended).

Under the invited-error doctrine, Forrest cannot assert as a basis for his appeal an error “that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court.”

A party cannot “appeal an error that he invited or that could have been preven ted at the district court” unless the “error meets th e plain error test.” State v. Carridine

Accordingly, this court applies “a modified plain -error test .”

Therefore, this court applies “a modified plain -error test.” State v. Carridine

(noting that invited-error doctrine does not apply if error meets plain-erro r test).

Accordingly, this court applies “a modified plain-error test.”

Under these circumstances, we apply a “modified plain-error test.”

Although our supreme court has questioned whether this distinction remains viable, , we need not decide this issue because we conclude that the prosecut or’s statements made during closing argument here did not constitute misconduct.

(stating that standard of review for unobjected -to prosecutorial misconduct is whether it affected defendant’s substantial rights).

State v. Carridine , , 146 (Minn. 2012).

(concluding that, because “the one instance of objected-to prosecutorial misconduct here is harmless even under the standard for more serious misconduct, we do not reach the i ssue of the continued applicability of the Caron test to objected-to prosecutorial misconduct” ).

Accordingly, “we apply a modified plain-error test.”

See State v. Carridine , (concluding that because “the one instance of objected-to prosecutorial misconduct here is 11 harmless even under the standard for more se rious misconduct, we do not reach the issue of the continued applicability of the Caron test to objected-to prosecutorial misconduct”).

n.2 (Minn. 2016); (applying standard for unusually serious misconduct without deciding the continued application of the Caron test).

This court “review[s] a district court’s de cision to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Carridine

Because “district courts are allowed cons iderable latitude in the selection of language for jury instructions,” appellate courts review a district court’s decision to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion

d 130, 142 (Minn. 2012).

-44 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that the justifiable-taking-of-life instruction was given in error where the defendant’s defense was that the death was unintended); Hare, d at 832-33 (concluding that the “self-defense— causing death” instruction was given in error where the defendant claimed the death was ac

See State v. Carridine , d 130, 142 (Minn .

“Under the invited error doctrine, a party cannot assert on appeal an error that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court.”

d 130, 146 (Minn. 2012).

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