Cited by

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (explaining that the plain-error exception to the forfeiture doctrine strikes a careful balance between judicial efficiency and the redress of injustice); –79 (Minn. 2014).

To establish plain error, an “appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” -74 (Minn. 2014).

- 51 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying plain-error review when a party objected to a jury instruction at trial but challenged the instruction for a different reason on appeal), aff’d on other grounds

To obtain relief for plain error, an “appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” –74 (Minn. 2014).

To establish plain error, an appellant must show that there was “(1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” –74 (Minn. 2014).

When reviewing for plain error, appellate courts “examine[] the law in existence at the time of appellate review, not the law in existence at the time of the district court’s error.”

D-12 after the rule is announced.”

An error is a “deviation from a legal rule unless the rule has been waived.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether the instructions accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”

When reviewing for plain error, appellate courts “examine[] the law in existence at the time of appellate review, not the law in existence at the time of the district court’s error.”

10, 2020) (reaching a similar conclusion).7 6 “[F]or purposes of applying the plain- error doctrine the court examines the law in existence at the time of appellate review, not the law in existence at the time of the district court’s error, to determine whether an error is plain.”

(stating that a party forfeits a right when they fail to timely assert it).

“[F]or purposes of applying the plain-error doctrine the court examines the law in existence at the time of appellate review, not the law in existence at the time of the district court’s error, to determine whether an error is plain.”

An appellate court reviews jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether the instructions accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”

An appellate court reviews jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether the instructions accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”

Under the plain-error test, “the appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” -74 (Minn. 2014).

This makes sense because “[w]hen an error is plain at the time of trial, the trial court should be able to recognize and correct the error without the parties’ help, so there is less reason to insist on an objection that may be unnecessary.” (Stras, J., 6 For completeness, it is worth repeating that even if an error is plain and affects the defendant’s substantial rights, we “may correct the error only when it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding

“Under the 13 plain-error doctrine, the law in existence at the time of appellate review, not the law in existence at the time of the district court’s error, is applied to determine whether an error is plain.”

And as an error-correcting court, we must “apply the best law available to us.” aff’d

d 269, 273 (Minn. 2014).

“An erroneous jury instruction will not ordinarily have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict if there is considerable evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” -84 (Minn. 2014).

An appellate court reviews jury instructions as a whole and seeks to determine whether they “accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”

ry of accomplice liability “must explain to the jury that in order to find a defendant guilty as an accomplice, 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.” Milton, d at 808 (emphasis added); (applying Milton).

This court reviews jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether [they] accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”

“[A] district court abuses that discretion if its jury instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” State v. Kelley

d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

“[A] district court abuses its discretion if the jury instructions ‘confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.’” -15 (Minn. 2015) ().

d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

Appellate courts “review the jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the instructions accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.” d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).