79, ¶ 17, 292 Wis. 2d 43, 717 N.W.2d 676. In considering the concurrence, we reiterate that the court did not rewrite Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(a) in Thiel and we do not rewrite the statute in the present case. Instead, Thiel interpreted § 948.11(2) (a), and we apply Thiel's interpretation of the statute. Thiel's interpretation of the statute is the law, at least until modified either by the legislature through amending the language of the statute or by this court overruling its prior interpretation. 23 That the instructions were misleading in the present case without use of the word "knowing" does not mean that the instructions given in the present case would necessarily be misleading in another case. Jury instructions must fit the facts of the particular case. See Burris, 2011WI32, ¶ 64 (<HOLDING>). The error in the present case is that the
holding appellate counsel ineffective for failing to argue the trial court committed fundamental error in giving the thenstandard jury instruction for manslaughter by act even though controlling precedent in the district had approved the instruction when the instruction had been found fundamentally erroneous in another district and conflict between the two districts would have allowed defendant to seek relief in the supreme court recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury recognizing that language approved by the court may raise questions if incorporated in a jury instruction in a case with different facts holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case recognizing that a party that objects to a jury instruction before the jury retires may challenge the instruction on appeal