Cited by

(sentence authorized by law); (section 609.04, subdivision 1).

By contrast, because an accomplice may provide false testimony that minimizes their own guilt, there is a “very real possibility that a jury might discredit all testimony except the accomplice testimony, and thus find the defendant guilty on the accomplice testimony alone.” (quotation omitted).

10 An accomplice is someone who “could have been indicted and convicted of the same crime for which the defendant is charged.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Judges’ Ass’n, Minnesota Practice–Jury Instruction Guides § 3.02, at 45-46 (7th ed. 2024); -52 & n.7 (Minn. 2012); -38 & n.1 (Minn. 1998); Jones, d at 907-08 & n.2, 911; Kelley, d at 907 & n.1, 910.

the jury foreperson sent a note to the district court that stated: “We have agreed on a verdict on two charges, but have not been able to agree on a third charge.

Whether a sentence violates Minn. Stat. § 609.04 is “a legal question [appellate courts] review de novo.”

d 540, 552 (Minn. 2012).

d 540, 552 (Minn. 2012).

1 We apply the “abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s charge to a jury to continue deliberating after the jury has indicated it was deadlocked.”

“When determining whether a person played a knowing role in the commission of the crime, we may infer criminal intent from the person’s presence, companionship, and conduct both before and after the crime.” (“Jurors can infer the necessary intent from factors including: defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, defendant’s close association with the principal before and after the crime, defendant’s lack of objection or surprise under

In the second petition, Reese contended that our court’s (Cox I), and State v. Cox , d 540 (Minn. 2012) (Cox II), created a change in the law that requires a new trial in his case.

“When determining whether a person played a knowing role in the commission of the crime, we may infer criminal intent from the person’s presence, companionship, and conduct both before and after the crime.”

d 540, 552 (Minn. 2012).