Cited by

Appellant relies on State v. Shannon , 92-93 (Minn. 1994) , in which the supreme court reversed a conviction of unintentional felony murder and remanded for a new trial after (1) the prosecutor had misstated the law on heat -of-passion manslaughter; (2) defendant’s counsel had failed to object to the “improper, misleading, and confusing argument”; (

-90 (Minn. 2002) (addressing mi sstatements of law on abandonment and burden of proof) ; State v. Shannon , -92 (Minn. 1994) (addressing misstatement of elements of heat -of-passion manslaughter).

See, e.g., Johnson, d at 628 (concluding manslaughter instruction was required where defendant and romantic partner “engaged in an increasingly heated argument that escalated into a physical altercation in which [partner] shot [defendant], provoking [defendant] to shoot her back just seconds later”); (concluding manslaughter instruction was C/D-4 required where defendant and romantic partner engaged in a heated argument that turned physical).2 Although Herrera-Torres testified that he did not in

See, (holdi ng that the district court’s failure to correct the jury’s confusion over a mislea ding argument from the prosecutor was error).

Finally, to support his argu ment.

13 –93 (Minn. 1994), for the proposition that it is prejudicial error for a district court to respond to a jury request for clarification by refusing to correct the confusion if the jury is obviously confused.

for the proposition that “it is prejudicial error for a district court to respond to a jury request for clarification by refusing to correct the confusion” when “the jury is ‘obviously confused.’” While this may be true, the facts of Shannon differ in an important respect

Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419 , d at 124 ; -93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); accord Keeble, 412 U.S. at 213 , 93 S.Ct.

hat he was provoked by the discovery of the affair, had not cooled off when he approached Voeller, and “snapped” when Voeller told him he “should be sorry.” He cites testimony that he was an emotional “train wreck,” was crying and shaking all morning as he listened to the taped conversation

See Griffin, d at 3 ( Leimveber, 303 Minn, at 417, d at 123 ).

State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 417-19

(new trial warranted where the trial court failed to correct the jury’s confusion, which was caused by conflicting statements of law in the prosecutor’s closing argument and the trial court’s original instructions).