Cited by

“An error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially 20 influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

“Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial under the constitutions of both the United States and Minnesota.” (citing U.S. Const. amend.

Where a defendant causes the delay, “there is no speedy trial violation.”

State v. Taylor , (q uotation omitted).

Appellant argues that we must reverse his conviction because the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel “in finding that the scheduling of [a]ppellant’s trial for a time when his chosen attorney was not available was reasonable under the circumstances.” “Claimed Sixth Amendment violations are subject to de novo review.” State v. Taylor

Barker Factors Consistent with this court’s precedent, we consider whether Nixon’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, using the following factors as set forth in Barker: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted his or her right to a speedy trial; and (4) whether the delay prejudiced the defendant.” 3 (quotation omitted).

” State v. Taylor , (quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its “broad discretion” if its instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law, ” -15 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted), or if the instructions omit an element of the charged offense, Stay, d at 430.

A district court abuses that discretion if its instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” State v. Taylor , -15 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

7(d) (providing that reversal is authorized only for errors prejudicing substantial rights); (an “error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced” the outcome of a decision).

In applying the harm less error test, “we must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the average jury (i.e., a reasonable jury) would have reached the same verdict if the evidence had been admitted and the damaging potential of the evidence fully realized.” (citations and quotation omitted).

If the district court’s erroneous ruling does not implicate a defendant’s right to testify, then the error is harmless “if there is no reason able possibility that it substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.” (alteration in original).

Third, the record does not indicate that the delay caused Hageman any “evidentiary prejudice,” such as “ memory loss by witnesses or witness unavailability .” (quotation omitted).

But a district court abuses its discretion if its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” -15 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

“While district courts have broad discretion to formulate appropriate jur y instructions, a district court abuses its discretion if the jury instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” -15 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

But a d istrict court abuses its discretion if its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” State v. Taylor , -15 (Minn. 201 5) (quotation omitted).

State v. Taylor , (stating that arguments in a pro se supplemental brief not 2 Powell asserts that over an hour elapsed be tween the assault and the photographing of Sergeant Deppa’s uniform.

When decidi ng whether a jury instruction accurately states the law, 15 “we analyze the criminal statute and the case law under it.” d 1, 15 (Minn. 2015).

Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Taylor , (“We deem arguments waived on appeal if a pro se supplemental brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations” (quotation omitted)); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported

See State v. Taylor , (“We deem arguments waived on appeal if a pro se supplemental brief contains no argument or ci tation to legal authority in support of the allegations.” (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Taylor , State v. Windish

A district court abuses its discretion, however, if its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” -15 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.’” (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S. Ct. at 2193).

State v. Taylor , , 14 (Minn. 2015) (quoting State v. DeShay , , 888 (Minn. 2003) ).

(“We deem arguments waived on appeal if a .

“To determine if a jury instruction correctly s tates the law, we analyze the criminal statute and the case law under it.”

State v. Taylor , , 15 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Taylor , Minn. R. Crim.

(“We deem arguments waived on appeal if a pro se supplemental brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations.” (quotation omitted)).