Cited by

Appellate courts “review the jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain the law.” 13 (Minn. 2016).

“We review the jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain the law.”

Even if we were to conclude that the plain error affected appellant’s substantial rights, we cannot conclude that the circumstances presented would “cause the public to seriously question the fairness and integrity of our judicial system.” Pulczinski, d at 359; (“[T]he fourth prong is satisfied only in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (quotation omitted)).

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

The state must prove 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.” 3–24 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

We recognize that the plain-error standard is discretionary and should only be used to correct “particularly egregious errors,” and only “in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (quotation omitted).

“We review a district court’s jury instructions for an abuse of discretion.”

“We review a district court’s jury instructions for an abuse of discretion.”

“The defendant has the burden of proving prejudice, and it is a heavy burden.”

6 Appellate courts generally “review a district court’s jury instructions for an abuse of discretion.”

Reversal will be granted only “in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (quotation omitted).

Erroneous jury instructions prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial if “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“The defendant has the burden of proving prejudice, and it is a heavy burden.” d 519, 525 (Minn. 2016).

The fourth prong of the plain-error test is that failure to correct the error will affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings, and this prong is satisfied only “in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (citations omitted).

Even if the three plain-error prongs are established, we may only grant relief if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

“Although the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings is sometimes served by ordering a new trial when a defendant’s substantial rights were affected by a plain error, that is not always the case.”

in other words, those errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citation and quotations omitted).

Id.; (“We review a district court’s jury instructions for an abuse of discretion.”); (“We will not reverse a trial court’s decision on jury instructions unless the trial court abused its discretion.”) However, a district court abuses its discretion whe

“was going to commit a crime” and (2) “intended his presence or actions to further 8 the commission of that crime.”

“We review a district court’s jury instructions for an abuse of discretion.”

Even if appellant satisfies all three prongs of the plain-error test, appellate courts will only correct errors that “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

An error in instructing the jury “ affects a defendant ’s substantial rights if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Huber

(“It is true that we have, at different times, used the words ‘overwhelming,’ ‘considerable,’ and ‘ample,’ to describe the quantum of evidence required in determining 15 corroborating testimony, physical evidence, or other witnesses to the abuse.

“[T]he [s]tate must prove that the defendant knew [their] alleged accomplice was going to commit a crime and the defendant intended [their] presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining tha t unobjected-to jury instructions may be reviewed for plain error).

Because Mason failed to object, we review the challenged jury instruction for plain error, and “the appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affected substantial rights.” State v. Huber

“[T]he [s]tate must prove 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.” (quotation omitted).

d 519, 527 (Minn. 2016) (holding that because the state did not present an overwhelming, considerable or ample quantum of evidence, the state did not overcome the prejudice).

“The state must prove that the defendant knew [her] alleged accomplice was going to commit a crime and the defendant intended her presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted).

If LeClair satisfies all three factors of the plain-error test, we “may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” -23 (Minn. 2016) ( (other quotation omitted)).

If Watkins satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error test, this court “may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” -23 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Crowsbreast , ) (other quotation omitted).

d 519, 528 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted); () (noting that the fairness-and-integrity prong is not met when a new trial would be futile and waste judicial resources); Kelley, d at 457.

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

We commonly refer to the person who committed the crime as the “principal” and the person who intentionally aided the principal’s commission of the offense as an “accomplice.”

d 519, 528 (Minn. 2016) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Minn. R. Crim.

In other words, “the [s]tate must prove 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.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Huber , -24 (Minn. 2016).

-25 (Minn. 2016) (explaining accomplice liability).

“We review a district court’s jury inst ructions for an abuse of discretion.”