1110 (Colo.1982) (en banc) (noting “even accurate statements of the law should not be used in jury instructions if they are misleading” and “it is error to include statements of the law without instructing the jury on how to apply them”). Confusing instructions are especially problematic in a factually close case, as is the situation here. See People v. James, 196 Cal. App.3d 272, 241 Cal.Rptr. 691, 700-01 (1987) (finding a confusing instruction harmless and noting it was “significant this [was] not a close case”); Preston v. State, 282 Ga. 210, 647 S.E.2d 260, 263 (2007) (noting a particular instruction should not be given in the future, as it “could have the possibility of being confusing in a close case”); see also United States v. Wisecar-ver, 598 F.3d 982, 989-90 (8th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Easley, 942 F.2d 405, 411-12
holding that the closure of a courtroom during jury selection a structural error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights holding confusing jury instruction given in a close case seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the trial holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that even if a defendant is able to show that there was a plain error that affected his substantial rights a court of appeals is not required to reverse a conviction unless it finds that the error seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings