Cited by

(analyzing plain error in jury instructions).

State v. Huber , (Mi nn.

The fairness-and-integrity prong is satisfied only “in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (citations om itted).

“An error in instructing the jury is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quoting Watkins, d at 28).

State v. Huber , Koppi, d at 361.

An accomplice must know that her “alleged accomplice was going to commit a crime and the defendant intended [her] presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” State v. Huber , (quotation omitted).

To impose criminal liability pursuant to this statute, 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.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Huber , Kelley, d at 275.

This rule authorizes appellate courts to correct only “particularly egregious errors” in which a “miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (quotations omitted).

d 519, 522 (Minn. 2016).

“ Under the plain-error doctrine, the appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affected substantial 8 rights.”

d 519, 525 (Minn. 2016).

This fourth prong is satisfied only “in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Huber , , 525 (Minn. 2016).

11 (c) The error did not affect Bauer’s substantial rights “An erroneous jury instruction affects a defendant’s substantial rights if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

See State v. Huber , (providing that an error in jury instructions affected appellant’s substantial rights where the jury “could have believed [appellant’s] version of events and yet still convicted him because of these errors ”).

State v. Huber , , 522 (Minn. 2016).

See State v. Huber , -25 n.3 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that district courts are encouraged “to separately instruct the jury on accomplice liability and on the und erlying elements of the subs tantive offenses because when the district court conflates the elements of accomplice li ability and the underlying substantive offense, the

Because Stauffer did not object to this testimony at trial, we review its admission for plain error , considering whether Stauffer has demonstrated “ (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affected substantial rights .” State v. Huber

State v. Huber , , 522 (Minn. 2016).

“An error in instructing the jury is prejudici al if there is a reasonable li kelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

This requirement “is satisfied only in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” (quotation omitted).

An accomplice -liability instruction must explain that a defendant is criminally liable for the acts of another only if he “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.” d 519, 524 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

This fourth prong is satisfied “only ‘in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’” (quoting United States v. Frady , 456 U.S. 152, 163 n.14, 102 S. Ct. 1584, 1592 n.14 (1982)).

Appellant did not object to th e jury instructions at tria l , s o w e r e v i e w t h e j u r y instructions for plain error.1

“An erroneous jury instruction affects a defendant’s substantial rights if the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” State v. H uber, d 519, 525 (Minn. 2016).

“Under the plain-error doctrine, the appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affected substantial rights.”