Cited by

If the three prongs of the plain -error test are met, a reviewing court “may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (alteration omitted) (quotations omitted).

2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); -86 (Minn.2012).

Vick, d at 687; (concluding district court did not plainly err in failing to provide sua sponte limiting instruction on prior-felony impeachment).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, a defendant must prove (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that 7 “there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotation omitted) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064-69 (1984)).

If the three prongs of the plain-error test are met, a reviewing court “may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (alteration omitted) (quotations omitted).

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

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

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

(subjecting exclusion of evidence to harmless error review).

The intentional-aid element is comprised of two principles: (1) “the defendant knew that the alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime” and (2) “the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotations omitted).

The “intentionally-aids” element is comprised of two principles: (1) “the defendant knew that the alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime” and (2) “the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotations omitted).

(“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)).

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

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

“To satisfy a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, (1) the defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) the defendant must prove there was a reasonable 7 probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotation omitted) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064-69 (1984)).

A district court has broad discretion in formulating jury instructions; however, it abuses that discretion “if the jury instructions ‘confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.’ ” -15 (Minn. 2015) ().

Even if a district court abuses its discretion by admitting expert testimony against a criminal defendant, appellate courts will not reverse “if there is no reasonable possibility that [the testimony] substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted) (assuming without deciding that district court erred by admitting expert testimony and concluding that assumed error was harmless).