liability jury instruction affected his substantial rights, Kelley has the heavy burden of proving that “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871, 880 (Minn.2006); accord Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741. An erroneous jury instruction will not ordinarily have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict if there is considerable evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See, e.g., Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn.2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn.2010) (<HOLDING>); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality
holding first degree murder instruction not warranted because defendant adduced no evidence that victim was not murdered during commission of robbery holding that defendants substantial rights were affected by unconstitutional admission of outofcourt testimonial statements that established elements of the charged offenses holding that a defendant had not shown that drugcourierprofile evidence affected his substantial rights because the government produced a substantial volume of additional evidence demonstrating the defendants guilty knowledge holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement holding that defendants substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was considerable evidence of the defendants intent that the victim be murdered