Cited by

d 676, 680-82 (Minn. 2024) (reviewing the common understanding of the phrase “within immediate reach” when undefined in statute), (concluding a district court plainly erred when they did not instruct the jury on the statutory definition of “force,” in part, because the statutory definition was different from “the most-common lay definition of the word”).

(“If an appellate court concludes that any requirement of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the appellate court need not consider the other requirements”), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

–22 (Minn. App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

(credibility); Wenthe, d at 306 (evidentiary rulings); d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (sentencing); (jury instructions), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

(“If an appellate court concludes that any requirement of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the appellate court need not consider the other requirements.”), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015), also cited by appellant, is particularly instructive here.

In State v. Moore , this court determined that omitting the statutory definition of “force ,” where force was an element of the charged offense, was error because the instructions “failed to include details that are necessary to fully explain the applicable law.” - 22 (Minn. App. 2015).

This court has interpreted Peterson to mean that “detailed definitions of an element of an offense may be necessary if, without the additional detail, the instructions could mislead the jury or cause the jury to speculate about what the state must prove to obtain a guilty verdict.” rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

“If an appellate court concludes that any requirement of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the appellate court need not consider the other requirements.” , rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

(“If an appellate court concludes that any requirement of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the appellate court need not consider the other requirements”), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

(determining that district court’s error in instructing jury was not plain when court had “not yet clearly required district courts to include” specific language at issue); State v. Moore , (concluding that jury-instruction error was not plain when other cases “involved an analogous situation but did not answer the question pres ented” by current appeal), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

State v. Moore , review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

State v. Moore , , 121-22 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Caldwell , , 384 (Minn. 2011) ), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

Such an outc ome would be inconsistent with a defendant’s right to “a jury determination that he is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged.” State v. Moore , -22 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Caldwell , ), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

Plain error exists if “(1) there is an error," (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affects the appellant’s substantial rights.” (Minn.App.

However, “detailed definitions of an element of an offense may be necessary if, without the additional det ail, the instructions could mislead the jury or cause the jury to speculate about what the state must prove to obtain a guilty verdict.” review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

(alterations in original), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).