Cited by

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

“Mere presence at the crime scene does not alone prove that a person aided or abetted, because inaction, knowledge, or passive acquiescence do not rise to the level of criminal culpability.” State v. Crow

“If no disagreement is expressed by the 11 jury, the verdict is complete, and the court shall discharge the jury from the case.” Id.; (“[A] verdict is not complete unless deliberations are over, the verdict is read in open court, and no dissent is expressed by the jury.”).

“The Due Process Clause requires that a defendant receive a fa i r t r i a l i n a f a i r tribunal before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.” State v. Crow , (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the reco rd to determine whether the evi dence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permi t the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Crow , (quotation omitted).

“The Due Process Clause requi res that a defendant receive a fair trial in a fair tribunal before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome 9 of his particular case.” State v. Crow , (quotation omitted).

-59 (Minn. 2006) (requiring intentional participation of accomplice to extend criminal liability to accomplice).

(“Defendant’s first conviction, which was set aside on appeal, was never a final conviction under the statute so as to bar the State’s prosecution of the other offenses arising out of the same conduct.”); (“An acquittal of an offense bars retrial for that offense, but double jeopardy does not bar retrial when a conviction is later set aside for trial error.” (citing United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671-72, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 1195 (1986))).1 Therefore, Minn. Stat. § 609.04 does not bar reprosecu

See 9 (providing that experts “may not testify to matters beyond [their] expertise”).

(“Mere presence at the crime scene does not alone prove that a person aided or abetted, because inaction, knowledge, or passive acquiescence do not rise to the level of criminal culpability.”).

“In a number of situations where jeopardy has attached, it may be interrupted or nullified in a manner that permits further prosecution.” 9A Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice § 48.3 (4th ed.2012); see, (stating that defendant’s successful appeal on basis of trial error does not bar retrial); White, d at 304 (stating that defendant waives double jeopardy claim on retrial after mistrial declared with defendant’s consent).

“To impose liability under the aiding and abetting statute, the state must show that the defendant played a knowing role in the commission of the crime.”

-82 (Minn.2007) (affirming conviction and sentence for first-degree murder for an aider and abettor who “played a knowing role in the commission of the crime” and was involved to the extent that a jury could infer criminal intent).

“Expert testimony is admissible if it will assist the trier of fact in evaluating evidence or resolving factual issues.”