Cited by

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

d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

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

8 A district court is afforded broad discretion to formulate appropriate jury instructions and only abuses that discretion if the jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

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

d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

Nevertheless, an instruction must not “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate th e law.” State v. Kelley

We review jury instructions “as a wh ole to determine whether the instructions 8 accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”

Nevertheless, an instruction must not “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law,”

“We review jury instructions as a whole to determine whether th e instructions accurately state the law in a manner th at can be understood by the jury.”

An appellate 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.” State v. Kelley

Because Daniels is challenging a jury instruction, he must satisfy “the ‘heavy burden’ of showing ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.’” n.18 (Minn. 2016) ().

(citing Milton, d at 808).

“An erro neous jury instruction will not ordinarily have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict if there is considerable evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” State v. Kelley , -84 (M inn.

“To establish that the erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction affect ed his substantial rights, [the appellant] has the heavy burden of proving that there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (citation omitted) ( internal quotation marks omitted).

Under the third requirement of the plain-error test, appellant has the “heavy burden of proving that there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“Under the plain -error doctrine, an ‘error’ is a ‘deviation from a legal rule [] unless the rule has been waived.’” State v. Kelley , (citation omitted).

An appellant claiming that an erroneous instruction affected his substantial rights bears a “heavy burden of proving that there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (quotation omitted) .

- 84 (Minn. 2014) (ruling erroneous jury instruction did not have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “there [was] considerable evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt”).

But a district court abuses that discretion if its jury instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014) (citation omitted).

“To satisfy the third prong of the plain-error test, [Barthman] bears the ‘heavy burden’ of showing there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that [the error] had a significant effect on the jury verdict.’ ” (); –82 (Minn. 2015)

-84 (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.”).

A district court abuses its discretion if the jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

Howard was “afforded a complete adversarial trial” and “presented his defense and theory of the case.” aff’d on other grounds

“[F]or purposes of applying the p lain-error doctrine, [this] court examines the law in existence at the time of appellate re view.”

State v. Kelley , , 274 (Minn. 2014).

(a) There was an error An appellate court “review[s] 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.”

n.13 (Minn. 2014) (declining to address each prong of plain -error test where defendant did not prove other prongs).

In this plain-error context, an error is a “[d]eviation from a legal rule [ ] unless the rule has been waived.” State v. Kelley , (quotation omitted).

See State v. Kelley , , 278 (Minn. 2014) (noting that encouraging objections in the district court allows errors to be "corrected before their full impact is realized").

12 The state also argues that because the district court instructed the jury “exactly as the [stalking] statute provided” and “explained the elem ents of the crime, completely consistent with the law, the [district] court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on pattern of stalking.” (stating that jury instructions must “accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury”); (“[Appellate courts] review a district court’s decision to give a requested jury instru

An appellant claiming that an erroneous instruction affected his substantial rights bears a “heavy burden of proving that there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (quotation omitted).