Cited by

I Jury instructions “must define the crime charged and explain the elements of that crime to the jury.” (quotation omitted).

“[A] warrantless seizure is presumptively unreasonable unless one of a few specifically established and well- delineated exceptions applies.” (quotations omitted).

d at 34; (declining to conclude plain error existed when jury instructions did not encompass reasoning from sufficiency-of-the-evidence cases).

“[A] warrantless seizure is presumptively unreasonable unless one of a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions applies.” (quotations omitted).

Under that standard of review, appellate courts determine “whether the jury instructions contained an (1) error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

In determining whether an instruction is plainly erroneous, we “review the jury instructions in their entirety to determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.” d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

de novo.’” ( (explaining that appellate courts “review the district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo”)).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

“The [s]tate bears the burden of proving any exception.” .

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

“[A] warrantless seizure is presumptively unreasonable unless one of a few specifically established and well- delineated exceptions applies.” (quotations omitted).

The phrase “intentionally aids” requires “(1) that the defendant ‘knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime,’ and (2) that the defendant ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.’” ().

intended [their] presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.”

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

A district court has “broad discretion and considerable latitude in choosing the language of the jury instructions.”

(explaining plain-view doctrine).

A district court has “broad discretion and considerable latitude in choosing the language of jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 148-49 (2013); -99 (Minn. 2012)

(jury instructions); (prosecutorial misconduct).

“The [s]tate bears the burden of proving any exception.”

“[T]he element of ‘intentionally aiding’ embodies two important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant ‘knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime,’ and (2) that the defendant ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.’” ().

Rather, as expressed in State v. Milton, the plain-view exception has three elements: “(1) the police are legitimately in the position from which they view the object; (2) they have a lawful right of access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent.” (quotation omitted); see also, n.2 (Minn. 2018) (identifying the same three elements).

11 A district court has “broad discretion and considerable latitude in choosing the language of the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

We have previously stated that jury instructions must explain that the “intentionally aiding” element requires that “the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew his alleged accomplice was going to commit a crime and the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.”

Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443, 454- 55, 474 (1971); 798-99 (Minn. 2012).