Cited by

(holding that “[a] defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given” forfeits the issue on appeal unless there is plain error).

(concluding that there was sufficient evidence to show a past pattern of domestic abuse where the State introduced evidence that the defendant threatened, pushed, and injured a victim but was not convicted of any crimes based on thes

(stating that the statute does not “specify a minimum number of incidents which must be proven in order to find a ‘pattern’ ”).

“A defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given to the jury generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.”

“Due process requires that every element of the offense charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.” State v. Cross

DECISION “Due process requires that every element of the offense charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.” State v. Cross

While a defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or object to instructions generally constitutes a forfeiture of that issue on appeal, we may review the jury instructions for plain error , State v. Crowsbreast

d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998); n.3 (Minn. 2015) (clarifying that “forfeiture” describes failure to make timely assertion of a right).

d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998).

(noting that a failure to object to an omission in a jury instruction or propose a specific jury instruction constitutes a forfeiture of the right to appeal the issue).

“A defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given to the jury generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.”

“A defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given to the jury generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.”

(“[A] failure to object will not cause an appeal to fail if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.”).

Nonetheless, “a failure to object will not cause an appeal to fail if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998).

the prior misconduct could be established by the state 4 by clear and convincing evidence.” 725 (Minn. 1998).