Cited by

The plain-error test requires that we determine “whether the jury instructions contained an (1) error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

(we review unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error and consider whether there was an error, that was plain, and that affected the defendant’s substantial rights).

tion permits a police officer to seize an object believed to be the fruit or instrumentality of a crime without a warrant if “(1) the police are legitimately in the position from which they view the object; (2) they have a lawful right 4 of access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent.”

To conclude that a person intentionally aided another in the commission of a crime, the state must prove “(1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant 11 intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted).

(concluding that shared stairway of duplex was common area and not curtilage); (concluding that defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the common hallway of apartment building); -38 (Minn. 19

We review the district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citations omitted).

“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review a court’s factual findings under our clearly erroneous standard” and its “legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citation omitted).

(quotation and citation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’”

Plain error “affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotations omitted).

at 524-25 (concluding that error in accomplice-liability instruction is plain in light of Kelley); Kelley, d at 275-77 ().

Jury instructions are reviewed “in their entirety to 6 determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case” and “define the crime charged and explain the elements of that crime to the jury.” (quotations omitted).

The supreme court’s is helpful because it involved a similar issue.

Our cases establish that when examining a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review “the district court’s factual findings under our clearly erroneous standard,” and the “legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (emphasis added) ( (“This court affords great deference to an issuing judge’s findings of fact, which we will reverse only if clearly erroneou