State v. Landrus, 974 N.W.2d 676

While incarcerated at the state penitentiary, Landrus refused to go to the behavior intervention unit; a removal team entered his cell and a sergeant testified Landrus choked him.
In August 2019 the State charged Landrus with aggravated assault under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-02(1)(c).
In September 2019 the State moved to amend the information to charge under § 12.1-17-02(1)(a); the district court granted the amendment.
At the June 2021 trial the district court nevertheless instructed the jury on the elements of subdivision (1)(c) (the originally charged subdivision) rather than subdivision (1)(a); neither party objected.
The jury convicted Landrus; on appeal he argued the instruction error was obvious and prejudicial. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury under the originally charged statutory subdivision after the information was amended to a different subdivision	Any instructional variance was not reversible error or was harmless given the record	Instruction on the wrong subdivision was an obvious/plain error because it failed to state the elements of the charged offense	Court: Yes. Instructing on subdivision (1)(c) after amendment to (1)(a) was plain error
Whether that instructional error affected substantial rights so as to require reversal and a new trial	The error did not prejudice the defendant or affect the outcome	The error was prejudicial because the jury was not required to find every element of the charged offense (due process violation)	Court: Yes. The error affected substantial rights and reversal/remand for a new trial is required

State v. Pemberton, 930 N.W.2d 125 (clarifies the obvious-error standard for unpreserved errors)
State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (jury instructions must correctly advise jury of applicable law; deviation is error and can violate due process)
State v. Patterson, 855 N.W.2d 113 (an error affects substantial rights only if it was prejudicial or affected the outcome)