Cited by

A witness is an accomplice if the witness “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(“Although prosecutors may not personally endorse witnesses, the State is free to argue that a particular witness is credible.”).

Lastly, Zielinski argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Nicholas’s credibility during closing argument, specifically calling his testimony “credible and truthful.” We have held that, “[a]lthough prosecutors may not personally endorse witnesses, the State is free to argue that a particular witness is credible.” ().

(“Assessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”); (“The legal 3 Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03(k) provides that “[o]n motion, the court may allow a defense reb

“Assessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”

A witness is considered an accomplice when “the witness could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(upholding murder conviction under aiding-and-abetting theory even when the state’s theory of the case was that Davenport was the one of three assailants who shot the victim); (upholding murder convictions stating that even if evidence was insufficient to prove defendant’s direct involvement, “he would also be guilty under a theory of aiding and abetting”).

“Assessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”

State v. Cox , State v. Pendleton

.” d 900, 907 (Minn. 2009).

“The test for determining if a witness is an accomplice is whether the witn ess could have been ‘indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.’” (quoting State v. Lee , ).

State v. Hanson , , 621 (Minn. 2011) ; State v. Pendleton , , 909 (Minn. 2009).

d 900, 909 (Minn. 2009).

See *671 State v. Pendleton , , 909-910 (Minn. 2009) (relying on evidence that the defendant and the victim had fought and had a "rocky relationship" in finding motive in support of premeditation); State v. Lodermeier , , 398 (Minn. 1995) (relying on evidence that the relationship between the defendant and the victim "had deteriorat

“Assessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”

“The test for determining if a witness is an accomplice is whether the witness could have been ‘indicted and convicted for the crim e with which the defend ant is charged.’” (d 309, 314 (Minn. 2004)).

Cf. State v. Pendleton , (holding that a district court di d not err in failing to give an instruction identifying a witness as an accomplice).

But “[a]ssessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the [fact-finder].”

“Assessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.” State v. Pendleton

Additionally, “[a]ssessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the provin ce of the jury.” State v. Pendleton

9 This court assumes that the factfinder “credited the state’s witnesses and rejected any contrary evidence.”

An accomplice is a witness who “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (quotation omitted).

[T]he witness must have played a knowing role in the crime—the witness’[s] mere presence at the scene is not sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted); (requiring district court “to name specific accomplices” in instructing the jury only if “the facts are undisputed or compel but a single inference” (quotation omitted)).

d 900, 909 (Minn. 2009).

Additionally, “[a]ssessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.”