With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has established that the defendant possessed the requisite intent at the time and place of the alleged crimes. Generally, a district court has considerable latitude in choosing jury instructions. State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105, 113 (Minn.2002). A reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s decision on jury instructions unless the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Persitz, 518 N.W.2d 843, 848 (Minn.1994). Our court has previously permitted a flight jury instruction. See State v. McLaughlin, 250 Minn. 309, 319, 84 N.W.2d 664, 671-72 (1957). But, in more recent cases we have instructed the district courts to avoid “jury instructions advising that a particular fact may be inferred from other particular facts, if proved.” State v. Litzau, 650 N.W.2d 177, 185-86 (Minn.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Olson, 482 N.W.2d 212,

A: holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense
B: holding that although neither of the trial courts errors when considered in isolation were necessarily sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial the cumulative effect of the errors created sufficient prejudice to deny defendant a fair trial
C: holding it was reversible error to give the jury a permissive inference instruction on possession of a controlled substance
D: holding reversal warranted where a permissive inference instruction on possession of a controlled substance contributed to the cumulative prejudicial effect of the errors in defendants trial
D.