Cited by

engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 609.185(6) (2000)).

See, –39 (Minn. 2001); State v. Johannessohn, 2024 WL 3250423, at *5 (Minn. App. July 1, 2024); (declining to decide whether a specific-unanimity instruction “would be warranted when the separate acts constitute a continuing course of conduct”).

See Richardson, 526 U.S. at 817 (citing Schad); see also, (citing Schad).

–39 (Minn. 2001) (holding that a unanimity instruction is not required for an element of a crime consisting of a “grouping of past acts”), with Stempf, d at 355 (requiring unanimity when the “act itself” is an element of a crime).

e is a reasonable likelihood” that an error in the jury instructions had a “significant effect on the verdict of the jury,” Griller, d at 741 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), we could have granted a new trial only if failure to do so would have “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

439 (Minn. 2001) (finding no error when district court did not instruct jury that it must agree unanimously on which acts comprised “past pattern of 12 domestic abuse” element for domestic-abuse homicide under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(6) (2000)).

If an appellant satisfies all three prongs of the plain-error test, we may correct the error “only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

d 433, 437 (Minn. 2001).

If Smith shows plain error, this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

A new trial is not warranted unless the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

When there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, the appellate court has discretion to consider a claim of error on appeal “if there was plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fun damental law in the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

1 To demonstrate that a jury instruction constituted plain error, Shines must show that “(1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected [his] substantial rights.”

When, as here, there is no objection to jury instructions, we may consider the issue on appeal “if there was plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law in the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted).

When there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, the appellate court has discretion to consider a claim of error on appeal “if there was plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundame ntal law in the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted) .

If those prongs are met, we consider whether the error must be addressed to ensure the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

If the defendant satisfies each of these three prongs, “we may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

If the appellant meets that burden, this court will correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

When there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, the appellate court has discretion to consider a claim of error on appeal “if there was plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law in the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted) .

If the defendant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error test, appellate courts “may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (2001) (alteration in original).

If LeClair satisfies all three factors of the plain-error test, we “may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” -23 (Minn. 2016) ( (other quotation omitted)).

If Watkins satisfies the first three prongs of the plain-error test, this court “may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” -23 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Crowsbreast , ) (other quotation omitted).

-38 (Minn. 2001) (noting that an unpreserved claim of an omitted specific-unanimity jury instruction is reviewed for plain error).

When there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, the appellate cour t has discretion to consider a claim of error on appeal only “if there was pl ain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law in the jury instructions.” (quotation omitted)

B.’s statement] under that evidence of domestic conduct.” 2 Appellant attempts to distinguish Salazar, arguing that in that case the jury bifurcated the offense and found that having a child squat and hold a ladder was malicious punishment, 8 “Verdicts are legally inconsistent if proof of the elements of one of fense negates a necessary element of another offense.”

Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467.

“If a jury renders legally inconsistent verdicts, reversal is warranted.”

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

- 38 (Minn. 2001) (providing that an unpreserved claim of an omitted specific -unanimity jury instruction is reviewed for plain error).

d 433 (Minn. 2001), the court stated that the right to a unanimous verdict does not mean that “‘jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission’” of a criminal offense.

(providing that an unpreserved claim of an omitted specific-unanimity jury instruction is reviewed for plain error).

-38 (Minn. 2001) (noting that an unpreserved claim of an omitted specific- unanimity jury instruction is reviewed for plain error ).

If appellant satisfies this burden, this court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Kelley, d at 273 (alteration in original) ( (citation omitted)); see also Woodard, d at 144 (stating court will address error to ensure fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings only if appellant satisfies burden on plain-error doctrine).

“If those three prongs are met, we may correct the error only if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” State v. Crowsbreast , (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467).

When there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, we have discretion to consider a claim of error on a ppeal if there was “plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundame ntal law in the jury instructions.” 13 (quotation omitted); s –09 (Minn. 2012).

State 11 v. Crowsbreast , -38 (Minn. 2001) (providing that an unpreserved claim of an omitted specific-unanimity jury instruction is reviewed for plain error).