State v. Sam, 904 N.W.2d 463

Christopher Sam was charged with first-degree aggravated robbery and second-degree assault; a jury convicted him of second-degree assault and sentenced him to 54 months.
On the final day of trial Sam was absent; the court found his absence voluntary, issued a warrant, and continued the trial under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03.
Defense counsel, unable to reach Sam, requested a no-adverse-inference jury instruction (CRIMJIG 3.17) while Sam was absent; the court gave the instruction and counsel did not object.
Sam’s attorney argued in closing that the jury should not infer guilt from Sam’s failure to testify.
On appeal Sam argued the court erred (plain error) by giving the no-adverse-inference instruction without Sam’s personal on-the-record consent.
The district court’s decision to proceed without Sam was not challenged on appeal; the appellate court considered whether giving the instruction without the defendant’s personal consent was error and, if so, plain and prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by giving a no-adverse-inference instruction without the defendant’s personal on-the-record consent	Sam: Instruction was erroneous because his personal consent was not obtained on the record	State: No error because Sam was voluntarily absent and counsel requested the instruction	No plain error: instruction permissible when counsel requests it for a voluntarily absent defendant
Whether any error was "plain" under plain-error review	Sam: Prior cases make lack of consent plain error	State: This situation is one of first impression; not obviously covered by prior rulings	Not plain: reasonable dispute exists given novel factual posture
Whether any error affected substantial rights (prejudice)	Sam: Instruction highlighted his silence and could have significantly affected the verdict	State: Counsel emphasized the instruction in closing and did not object, suggesting lack of prejudice	No substantial effect shown; Sam did not meet heavy burden to prove prejudice
Whether a new trial is required to preserve judicial fairness	Sam: Remedy required if error and prejudice shown	State: No remedy necessary because no plain error or prejudice	No new trial; conviction affirmed

State v. Darris, 648 N.W.2d 232 (Minn. 2002) (sets plain-error three-part test)
State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2002) (discusses whether instructions are erroneous)
State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. 2006) (holding that no-adverse-inference instruction given without defendant’s consent was error and plain in that case)
State v. Thompson, 430 N.W.2d 161 (Minn. 1988) (generally advises obtaining defendant’s permission before giving no-adverse-inference instruction)
State v. Clifton, 701 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 2005) (no plain error when record shows defendant and counsel agreed to instruction)
State v. Johnson, 483 N.W.2d 109 (Minn. App. 1992) (defendant’s voluntary absence after impaneling waives rights; trial may continue)
State v. Parker, 853 N.W.2d 122 (Minn. 2014) (failure to object can imply comments were not prejudicial)