Cited by

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[T]he elements of the crime should be explained, but detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (holding that the district court did not err when it did not provide a definition of “theft” or “steal” in the jury instructions for burglary).

A district court also errs if it “instructs the jury to consider the lesser crimes only if it finds the defendant not guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

(recognizing that instructions that materially misstate the law or confuse the jury are erroneous).

ANALYSIS We review “jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they correctly state the law.”

if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (quotation omitted).

if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (quotation omitted).

“A district court has considerable latitude when selecting the language of jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

33 “When jury instructions contradict the plain language of the statute or an interpretation of the statute previously adopted by [the Minnesota Supreme Court], they are erroneous.”

First, the district court must “look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether [the] hearsay statement has ‘circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.’” ().

Finally, “a trial court need not define every phrase or word used in the [jury] instructions, especially when they are used in their ordinary sense and are commonly understood.” State v. Davis , n.3 (Minn. 2015); see also, e.g., State v. Heinzer , (“Words of common usage within the ordinar y understanding of a juror need not be defined by the court.”), rev. denied (Minn. July 26, 1984).

d 807, 813 (Minn. 1989).

(interpreting the language of 1 The state appears to argue that the jury’s verdict could have been based on a finding that Conant actually committed some crime while in the h ouse.

First, the court must look at the “totality of the circumstances” to determine whether or not the hear say statement has “circumstantial 10 guarantees of trust worthiness.” State v. Davis , (quotation omitted).

was entitled to income through 4 an annuity.” The district court stated that Ol son did not object to this instruction at trial.1 “A defendant generally forfeits the right to c ontest jury instructions on appeal when the defendant fails to object at trial.”

“A defendant generally forfeits the right to contest jury instructions on appeal when the defendant fails to object at trial.” State v. Davis

see also State v. Vance , -55 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck

if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (holding no error in failure to define “theft” or “steal”).

“[D]etailed definitions of the elements [of] the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instruction s do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” d 171, 177 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted) .

“Whether a district court’s jury instruction s correctly state the law presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”

80 7 are those circumstances actually surrounding the making of the statements .” (quotation omitted).

Here, despite the district court’s instructions to the jury that it is free to consider the issues in any order, the instruction that the jury should not return verdicts on the remaining counts if it found appellant gu ilty of the possession-with-inte nt-to-sell count “reasonably could be construed as suggesting an order in which the jury should consider the charges.”

State v. Davis , , 176 (Minn. 2015).

“A defendant generally forfeits the right to contest jury instructions on appeal when the defendant fails to object at trial.”

(“A defendant generally forfeits the right to contest jury instructions on appeal when the defendant fails to object at trial.”).

State v. Davis , , 179 (Minn. 2015).

An instruction materially misstates the law if, for example, it is “inconsistent with the statutory language.” See S (holding a burglary instruction to be erroneous when it failed to track the statutory element that a defendant must have developed the intent to 6 commit a theft before a building entry rather than after entry).

“[D]etailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” d 171, 177 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

See State v. Davis , -78 (Minn. 2015).

Minnesota courts look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a hearsay statement has “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Davis , , 176 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Davis , , 178 (Minn. 2015).