With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". liability jury instruction affected his substantial rights, Kelley has the heavy burden of proving that “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871, 880 (Minn.2006); accord Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741. An erroneous jury instruction will not ordinarily have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict if there is considerable evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See, e.g., Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 733 (Minn.2011) (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn.2010) (<HOLDING>); Gomez, 721 N.W.2d at 881 (“Given the totality

A: holding that a defendant had not shown that drugcourierprofile evidence affected his substantial rights because the government produced a substantial volume of additional evidence demonstrating the defendants guilty knowledge
B: holding that defendants substantial rights were affected by unconstitutional admission of outofcourt testimonial statements that established elements of the charged offenses
C: holding that defendants substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was considerable evidence of the defendants intent that the victim be murdered
D: holding first degree murder instruction not warranted because defendant adduced no evidence that victim was not murdered during commission of robbery
C.