Cited by

An erroneous jury instruction “affects substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that a more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome in this case.” -35 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” (quotation omitted).

an error affects substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that a more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome in this case.” -35 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).

When reverse-Spreigl evidence is offered to cast doubt upon the identity of the person who committed the charged offense, such evidence is relevant and material if it is 14 “sufficiently similar to the charged crime in terms of time, place, or modus operandi.” Id.; (stating that a defendant may, under certain circumstances, present evidence of the alternative perpetrator’s prior crimes that are “so closely connected in point of time and method of operation as to cast doubt upon the identificatio

“The determination of whether or not something is appropriate rebuttal evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”

(holding that an improper jury instruction did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because the defendant could not establish that a proper instruction could have changed the outcome of the case).

-35 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).

“Failure to satisfy any part of this test results in the evidence being inadmissible.”

See State v. Heden , , 698 (Minn. 2006) (affirming life without possibility of release sentence for first-degree murder while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct); State v. Gutierrez , , 438-39 (Minn. 2003) (affirming sentence of life without the possibility of release for first-degree felony murder, and noting that an appellant arguing that such a sentence is unconstitutional as applied to him would have to show that "our culture and laws emphatically and well nigh univer

“Each prong of the plain error test must be met before we will correct the error.” State v. Gutierrez

(quoting 8 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice— Criminal Law and Procedure § 32.54 (3d ed. 2001))

“[District] courts are permitted considerable freedom when determining how to instruct the jury as long as the jury instruction is not confusing or misleading on fundamental points of the law.”

“In the context of jury instructions, we have held that an error affects substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that a more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome in this case.” d 426, 434-35 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).

an error affects substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that a more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome in this case.” -35 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).

“In the context of jury instructions, [the supreme court has] held that an error affects substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that a more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome in th[e] case.” –35 (Minn. 2003) (quotation 9 omitted).

“In the context of jury instructions, we have held that an error affects substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that a more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome in this case.” -35 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).

Proper rebuttal evidence may include evidence that might not otherwise be admissible, and the district court’s determination “of whether or not something is appropriate rebuttal evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.” d 426, 435 (Minn. 2003).

Minnesota has used various terms to describe this type of defense, including “alternative perpetrator,” see, and "third party perpetrator,” see

(“The determination of whether or not something is appropriate rebuttal evidence rests with *563 in the discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.”).

(declining to reach a claim that evidence was erroneously admitted on other grounds because the court had already concluded the evidence was admissible under section 634.20).