Cited by

Although we have historically relied on federal case law in considering plain error challenges that implicate the constitutional requirement for jury unanimity, see, –19 (Minn. 2002) (applying federal case law), we have expressly incorporated a requirement for jury unanimity into our criminal procedure rules.

(holding that a unanimity instruction was not necessary in part because the defendant’s behaviors “were committed as part of a single behavioral incident”).

To establish that an error is plain, the error must be “‘clear’” or “‘obvious.’” (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)).

And “the jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible means [a] defendant used to commit [an] offense in order to conclude that an element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Under well-established caselaw concerning the plain-error test, an error is “plain” only if the error is “‘clear ’” or “‘obvious.’” (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)).

Jury instructions must define the charged crime and should explain its elements, but the district court need not provide detailed definitions of the elements if the instructions “do not mislead the jury or allow it 8 to speculate over the meaning of the elements,” Davis, d at 177 (quotation omitted).

“District courts are allowed considerable 13 latitude in the selection of language for jury instructions.”

Minnesota jury verdicts must be unanimous on each element of the charged crime to support a conviction, –31 (Minn. 2007), but to conclude that an element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, “the jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible means the defendant used to commit the offense,”

But, if there are “several possible means” for a defendant’s acts to satisfy an element, “the jury need not always decide unanimously which of [those] means the defendant used.”

- 16 (Minn. 2002) (reiterating that Minn. Stat. 609.50 is construed narrowly and is focused on whether the defendant acted with intent).

“A single behavioral incident is the result of a single motivation directed towards a single criminal goal.” State v. Infante , (), rev. denied (Minn. June 28, 2011); (where the defendant’s actions in obstructing-legal-process case were part of a “single behavioral incident,” jury was not required to unanimously agree on his specific actions).

at 357; d 910, 919 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that, if multiple acts are a part of a single behavioral incident, a specific -jury unanimity instruction is not required ).

But “if the statute establishes alternative means for satisfying an element, unanimity on the means is not required.” -14 (Minn. 2002) (citing Richardson, 6 526 U.S. at 817-18).

See, (concluding that the alleged prosecutorial error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights); (concluding that the alleged prosecutorial error was not plain); –19 (Minn. 2002) (finding no prosecutorial error).

explain the elements of the offense.”

( (granting no relief for the defendant because the alleged error could not have been plain); -19 (Minn. 2002) (analyzing the underlying legal questions and finding no error) (other citation omitted)); see also Davis, d at 727 (analyzing only the first prong—whether there was an error—and holding that, “[b]ecause the prosecutor’s statements [in closing argument] were not misconduct, .

“To achieve that end, a jury must ‘unanimously find [] that the [state] has proved each element of the offense.’” d 717, 730-31 (Minn. 2007) (first alteration in original) (d 910, 918 (Minn. 2002)).

“To achieve that end, a jury must ‘unanimously find [ ] that the [state] has proved each element of the offense.” -31 (Minn. 2007) (first alteration in original) ().

(recognizing “the jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible means the defendant used to commit the offense in order to conclude that an element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (citing Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817-18 (1999)); State v. Begbie, 41

(relying on Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817- 18 (1999)).

In State v. Ilhe, the supreme court held that instructing the jury on “alternative means” of committing an element of the offense did not violate Ilhe’s right to a unanimous verdict because the different means were “not inherently different types of conduct grouped under a single offense.”

See, e.g. , State v. Coleman , (concluding that the defendant’s claim of error was not viable because it could not have affected his substantial rights); d 677, 689 (Minn. 2008) (granting no relief for the defendant because the alleged error could not have been plain); –19 (Minn. 2002) (analyzing the underlying legal questions and finding no error).

“To achieve that end, a jury must ‘unanimously find that the government has proved each element of the offense.’” Pendleton, d at 730-31 ().

(quoting Schad, 501 U.S. at 631-32, 111 S. Ct. at 2497 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation omitted)); -19 (Minn. 2002).

d 910, 918 (Minn. 2002) (citing Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817–18, 119 S. Ct. 1707, 1710 (1999)).

7 State v. Ihle , (quot ations omitted).

d 105, 113 (Minn. 2002) ; State v. Ihle

The court must define the crime charged, explaining the elements of the offense “rather than simply read statutes.” State v. Ihle

Jurors must unanimously find “that the government has proved each element of the offense.”

explain the elements of the offense.”

explain the elements of the offense.” State v. Ihle

See, e.g. , Fellers v. United States , 540 U.S. 519 , 521, 124 S. Ct. 1019 , 1021, 157 L.Ed.2d 1016 (2004) ; State v. Gauster , , 501 (Minn. 2008) ; State v. Ihle , , 913 (Minn. 2002).

Jury instructions must “fairly a nd adequately explain the law.” State v. Ihle

State v. Ihle , , 918 (Minn. 2002) (citing Richardson v. United States , 526 U.S. 813 , 817-18, 119 S.Ct.