Cited by

Regarding the causation requirement, “the State must prove the defendant’s acts were a substantial causal factor leading to the death.” (quotation omitted).

(noting our presumption that “juries follow instructions given by the court” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

As important, no direct evidence contradicts the fact that Heidi made the statements, and it is not susceptible to a 11 in which we found it was a circumstance proved that the defendant fabricated an alibi, to support its argument that “reject[ing] a defendant’s testimony positively establishes the opposite conclusion.” But in that case the defendant initially provided an alibi, then later admitted that he drove his

“A defendant 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.

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions.” 11 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

It is true that “[a] defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.”

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

(“We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court and thereby recognize the effectiveness of curative instructions.” (quotation omitted)); WL 6442166, at *4 (Minn. App. Dec.

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

A district court is given “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that juries presumably follow instructions).

“Alleged errors in jury instructions are reviewed under the harmless error test.” -48 (Minn. 2011).

To prove that a defendant’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing the death of another “[i]t must be shown that the defendant’s acts injured the victim which then led to the victim’s death.” (quotation omitted).

those acts with which the defendant is charged in the complaint.” The district court then cautioned the jury, “This evidence is not to be used to prove the character of the defendant, or that defendant acted in conformity with such character.” “We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court and thereby recognize the effectiveness of curative instructions.” (quotation omitted); see also Welle, d at 366 ().

9 (“We presume that juries follow instructions given b y the court and thereby recognize the effectiveness of curative instructions.” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Gatson , (quotation omitted).

State v. Gatson , (quotation omitted).

A district court has “‘considerable latitude’ in selecting language for jury instructions.” State v. Gatson , (

State v. Gatson , (Mi nn.

See, (criminal vehicular homicide); (first -degree murder); State v. McCormick , d 498, 507 -08 (Minn. App. 2013) (second -degree manslaughter), review denied (Minn. Oct.

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

-57 (Minn. 2013) (upholding a peremptory challenge when there were discrepancies regarding criminal history between the prospective juror’s oral and written voir dire); –43 (Minn. 2011) (upholding a peremptory challenge when there were inconsistencies in a prospective juror’s answers about a friend’s criminal trial); see also Onyelobi, d at 347 (upholding a peremptory challenge because a prima facie case was not made and also noting that a prospective juror did not d

A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions.” State v. Gatson , (quotation omitted).

” State v. Gatson , (quotation omitted) .

d 134, 151 (Minn. 2011) (noting that curative instruction s lessen the risk of prejudice) .

A district court has “considerable latitude ” in the selection of language for jury instructions, and “we will not reverse where jury instructions overall fairly a nd correctly state the applicable law.”