Cited by

viewing the potential omission of an element of a crime in a jury instruction, we may consider, “among other factors, whether: (1) the defendant contested the omitted element and submitted evidence to support a contrary finding, (2) the State submitted overwhelming evidence to prove that element, and (3) the jury’ s verdict nonetheless encompassed a finding on that element.” - 29 (Minn. 2013).

“An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

Although appellate courts typically review jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, d 401, 408 (Minn. 2024), a plain-error analysis applies here because Moreno failed to object to the jury instructions, -28 (Minn. 2013).

B. Substantial Rights “[T]he omission of an element of a crime in a jury instruction does not automatically require a new trial.”

13 appellant’s substantial rights when “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”

-26 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

When the unobjected- to error involves a jury instruction, the appellant must establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the erroneous instruction “had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”

A prior version of the statute required the state to prove that a defendant “knowingly violate[d]” a DANCO, Minn. Stat. § 629.75 (2012), and the supreme court interpreted this language to require the state to prove that the defendant “perceive[d] directly that the contact violated the DANCO statute,”

But “an unobjected-to jury instruction is subject to plain-error analysis.”

While “the omission of an element of a crime in a jury instruction does not automatically require a new trial,” the supreme court has said that “a thorough examination of the record [must be conducted] to determine whether the omission of an element of a charged offense from the jury instruction was sufficiently prejudicial in light of the standard of review.” -29 (Minn. 2013); (citing Watkins and stating, “[a]n omission of an element of the crime charged is not always prejudicial”).

to argue that a DANCO violation is a specific-intent crime.

“ Failure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.” State v. Watkins , (quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds, .

affect[ing] the entire trial from beginning to end and undermin[ing] the structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself.” (quotations and citation omitted) (describing structural error).

We agree with Anderson’s interpretation that the phrase “knowingly expect the presence of a child” means “aware of or believed in the probable or anticipated presence of a child.” (defining knowingly as a derivative of “know,” which means “to perceive directly; grasp in mind with clarity or certainty” (quotation omitted)); -61 (Minn. App. 2012) (applying the Model Penal Code definition of “knowingly”); The American Heritage Dictionary

Questions of fact “must be submitted to the jury.”

( (other quotation omitted).

() (other quotation omitted).

An error in the district court’s jury instructions is prejudicial if “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

And an error is considered prejudicial if there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the error “had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” 10 (quotation omitted).

.” (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15 (1999)).

We also note that Barron’s reliance on Peterson to argue that the failure to orally instruct the jury on each element of the offense in the final charge is a structural error, not subject to harmless-error review, is greatly diminished by a more recent supreme court decision—

State v. Watkins , -28 (Minn. 2013).

But even if we did, to reverse Taylor’s conviction, he must show that there is a reasonable probability that the jury instruction “significantly affected the verdict.” n.3 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted)

The Minnesota Supreme Court answered a similar question when it concluded “that the failure to instruct the jury on an element of the charged offense is subject to review as a trial error, not as a structural error.”

To be convicted of a felony DANCO violation, the defendant “must have intentionally engaged in prohibited conduct, knowing that such contact was prohibited.” State v. Watkins , aff’d on other grounds

" State v. Watkins , , 28 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Scruggs , , 642 (Minn. 2012) ).

State v. Mikulak , , 603 (Minn. 2017) ; see also State v. Watkins , , 30 (Minn. 2013).

State v. Watkins , , 28 (Minn. 2013).

(“[I]t is the function of the finder of fact .

“An error affects a defendant ’s substantial rights if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

d 264, 269 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted), aff’d. on other grounds (Minn. Dec.