State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111 (Minn.App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015), also cited by appellant, is particularly instructive here. In Moore, this court held that a district court must instruct the jury on the statutory definition of "force" when a defendant is charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct and the state seeks to prove that the defendant used force to accomplish the crime.

In State v. Moore, this court determined that omitting the statutory definition of "force," where force was an element of the charged offense, was error because the instructions "failed to include details that are necessary to fully explain the applicable law." 863 N.W.2d 111, 121-22 (Minn.App. 2015). The district court's omission of the statutory definition of "great bodily harm"

To succeed under the plain-error standard, Robertson must show that the district court erred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 119 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). If he establishes these elements, we may reverse if we conclude that the error also significantly undermined the fairness and integrity of the proceeding.

However, "detailed definitions of an element of an offense may be necessary if, without the additional detail, the instructions could mislead the jury or cause the jury to speculate about what the state must prove to obtain a guilty verdict." State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 120 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). This court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's jury instructions, Koppi, 798 N.W.2d at 361, reviewing them "as a whole to determine whether [they] accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury," State v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269, 274 (Minn. 2014).

(Emphasis added.) Ultimately, we need not determine whether the prosecutor's statements in this case constitute plain error because we are satisfied that the alleged error did not affect Chamberlain's substantial rights. See State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 119 (Minn.App. 2015) ("If an appellate court concludes that any requirement of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the appellate court need not consider the other requirements."), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). In making that determination, we consider the strength of the evidence against Chamberlain, the pervasiveness of the erroneous conduct, and whether Chamberlain had an opportunity to rebut any improper remarks.

This court has interpreted Peterson to mean that "detailed definitions of an element of an offense may be necessary if, without the additional detail, the instructions could mislead the jury or cause the jury to speculate about what the state must prove to obtain a guilty verdict." State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 120 (Minn.App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). Accordingly, whether instructions are misleading without detailed statutory definitions depends primarily on whether there are differences between the statutory definition of a word or phrase and the common and ordinary meaning of the word or phrase.

"If an appellate court concludes that any requirement of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the appellate court need not consider the other requirements." State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 119 (Minn.App. 2015), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

We need not determine whether the prosecutor's description of the presumption of innocence in this case constitutes plain error because we are satisfied that the alleged error did not affect Portillo's substantial rights. See State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 119 (Minn.App. 2015) ("If an appellate court concludes that any requirement of the plain-error test is not satisfied, the appellate court need not consider the other requirements"), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). To determine whether the misconduct significantly impacted the jury verdict, we consider "the pervasiveness of improper suggestions and the strength of evidence against the defendant." State v. Parker, 901 N.W.2d 917, 926 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

To show that an error is plain, a defendant on appeal generally must show that a court has spoken directly on the issue challenged. See State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 807 (Minn. 2012) (determining that district court's error in instructing jury was not plain when court had "not yet clearly required district courts to include" specific language at issue); State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 122 (Minn.App. 2015) (concluding that jury-instruction error was not plain when other cases "involved an analogous situation but did not answer the question presented" by current appeal), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). Without any caselaw that stands for the proposition LeBoeuf asserts, he cannot show that the error was clear or obvious.

"The extent to which a district court must explain the law of the case, define the crime charged, and explain the elements of the offense" depends on the facts and law of each particular case. State v. Moore, 863 N.W.2d 111, 120 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015). "[D]etailed definitions of an element of an offense may be necessary if, without the additional detail, the instructions could mislead the jury or cause the jury to speculate about what the state must prove to obtain a guilty verdict."