Cited by

Nielsen challenges the jury instructions, and in particular , the district court’s instruction that “[t]he jury verdict must be unanimous.” 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.”

Cf. State v. Kelley , (concluding that an erroneous jur y instruction did not have an effect on the defendant’s substantial rights when there was other considerable evidence o f guilt).

Appellate courts “review the jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the i nstructions accurately state the law in a 9 manner that can be understood by the jury.”

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

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).

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

P. 31.02; - 74 (Minn. 20 14).

Bank, d 585, 603 (Minn. App. 2013), aff’d as modified, N. Star Int’l Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. , State v. Kelley , aff’d on other grounds

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

Under this three -prong plain-error test, an “error” is a “deviation from a legal rule unless the rule has been waived.” (quotation omitted).

But if an appellant “satisfies the first three prongs of the pl ain-error doctrine, we may correct the error only if it seriously affect[ s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

(indicating that this court looks to the law as it exists at the time of appellate review when considering whether an error is plain).

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

“If the appellant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error doctrine, we may correct the erro r only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

(declining to find plain error where law was undecided).

Plain error is “determined at the time of appellate review.”

We revi ew a district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, and we review the jury instructions as a whole to determine if they accurately state the law in a manner that is understandable to the jury, d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

7 “Under the plain-error doctrine, an error is a deviation from a legal rule unless the rule has been waived.” State v. Kelley , (quotation omitted).

A district court has broad discretion to formulate appropriate jury instructions and only abuses its discretion if the jury instructions “ confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” Taylor, d at 14-15 ().

See Hollins, d at 133; aff'd on other grounds , (noti ng this court’s role as “an error- correcting court”).

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

d (1981).3 The instruction preserved the substantial correctness of the charge and did not result in a miscarriage of justice such that it affected “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Kelley , (quotation omitted).

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

Gulbertson v. State , State v. Kelley

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.”

A jury instruction error is prejudicial if the defen dant carries her “heavy burden” and shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” ().

“We review a district court’s decision to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion,” and we review the jury instructions as a whole to determine if they accurately state the law in a manner that is understandable to the jury

And we consider whether the instructions, as a whole, “accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.” State v. Kelley , .

The district court errs “if its jury instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate t he law.” State v. Kelley

This court applies an abu se-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s jury instructions, Koppi, d at 361, reviewing them “as a whole to determine whether [they] accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury,”

(noting that, as an error-correcting court, this court lacks authority to change established supreme court precedent), aff'd, ("This is an error-correcting court, and we apply the best law available to us."), aff'd, ("[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court."), review denied (Minn. Dec.

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

In determining whether an error is plain, we consider “the law in existence at the time of appellate review.”

We review a district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, and we review the jury instructions as a whole to determine if they accurately state the law in a manner that is understandable to the jury, d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

“Under the plain-error doctrin e, 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).