that Santana Standing Bear intentionally took her own life, or that either Santana Standing Bear or Toby Bolzer accidentally caused the gun to discharge, then you must find the defendant not guilty on both counts of the indictment.” This instruction informed the jury that it needed to determine the veracity of Bolzer’s claim that the gun went off accidentally or by Santana’s own actions. Furthermore, the court later stated: “Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should be. That is entirely for you to decide.” Again, this instruction illustrated to the jury that it must reach a verdict on its own and that any suggestions of guilt or innocence contained in the instructions were inadvertent. See, e.g., United States v. Lalley, 257 F.3d 751 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). VII. For the reasons stated above, we affirm
holding that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions that offered alternative theories of murder holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in giving jury instructions that taken together fairly and adequately conveyed the issues to the jury holding that jury instructions must allow the jury to determine the issues presented intelligently holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by coneluding the plea would not adequately represent the defendants criminal conduct