Opinion ID: 889354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 103 Whether the District Court erred in instructing the jury on the definitions of purposely and knowingly. ¶ 104 Gunderson contends that the District Court erred when it gave the jury disjunctive definitions of purposely and knowingly that defined the terms as relating either to conduct or to result. Gunderson did not object to the court's instructions at the time, and he now argues that we should invoke the common law plain error doctrine to review this alleged error. ¶ 105 Once again Gunderson failed to meet his burden to show that plain error review is appropriate. As we stated in the previous issue, a mere assertion that constitutional rights are implicated or that failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice is not sufficient to invoke the plain error doctrine. Whipple, ¶ 34. ¶ 106 Accordingly, we decline to apply the plain error doctrine to review Gunderson's claim that the District Court erred in instructing the jury on the definitions of purposely and knowingly.