instructions contain plain error in Minnesota

2017See State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998) (“[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.”). 4 To preserve an issue for appeal and avoid the plain-error standard, a party must “bring the issue to the attention of the [district] court.” State v. Onyelobi, 879 N.W.2d 334 , 353 n.16 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

2016Nonetheless, “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.” State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998).

2004State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.1998) (citing State v. Malaski, 330 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Minn.1983)).

2004State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.1998) (citing State v. Malaski, 330 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Minn.1983)).

2015Nonetheless, “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.” Id.; see also State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn. 2001).

2002State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn.2001); State v. Malaski, 330 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Minn.1983); see also Minn. R.Crim.

2014“Failure to object to jury instructions may result in waiver of the issue on appeal,” “[b]ut [an appellate court has] discretion to review instructions not objected to at trial if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631, 642 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

2013“Failure to object to jury instructions may result in waiver of the issue on appeal,” “[b]ut [an appellate court has] discretion to review instructions not objected to at trial if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631, 642 (Minn.2012) (quotation omitted).

2009But we have discretion to examine instructions that were not objected to at trial “if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” State v. White, 684 N.W.2d 500, 508 (Minn.2004).

2005However, we have discretion to examine instructions that were not objected to at trial “if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” Id.; State v. White, 684 N.W.2d 500, 508 (Minn.2004).

2017See State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998) (“[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.”). 4 To preserve an issue for appeal and avoid the plain-error standard, a party must “bring the issue to the attention of the [district] court.” State v. Onyelobi, 879 N.W.2d 334 , 353 n.16 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

2016Nonetheless, “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.” Id.; see also State v. Gunderson, 812 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Minn. App. 2012) (reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error).

2016“Under the plain-error standard, [an appellate court] review[s] the jury instructions to determine whether there was error, that was plain, and that affected [appellant’s] substantial rights.” Gunderson, 812 N.W.2d at 159 .

2016Nonetheless, “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.” Id.; see also Huber, 877 N.W.2d at 522 (reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error).

2013An appellate court “will order a new trial only if all three prongs of the plain error standard are satisfied and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[District courts have latitude” and “broad discretion in determining jury instructions.” State v. Hayes, 831 N.W.2d 546, 555 (Minn.2013) (quotation omitted) (stating during plain-error analysis).

2012To establish plain error, a defendant must show: “(1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 600 (Minn.2010).

2005We analyze jury instructions "with the understanding that trial courts possess significant discretion in the selection of instruction language and that instructions must be read as a whole to determine whether they accurately describe the law." State v. Smith, 674 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Minn.2004).

2005We analyze jury instructions “with the understanding that trial courts possess significant discretion in the selection of instruction language and that instructions must be read as a whole to determine whether they accurately describe the law.” State v. Smith, 674 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Minn.2004).