Cited by

But the s upreme court has held that the element of “intentionally aiding” includes “two important and necessary princi ples: (1) that the defendant ‘knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime,’ and (2) that the defendant ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.’” ().

State v. Milton , , 805 (Minn. 2012).

(quotations and citations omitted).

“An error is plain if it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’” State v. Milton

“[A] warrantless seizure is pr esumptively unreasonable unless one of a few 5 specifically established and well -delineated exceptions applies.” State v. Milton , (quotations omitted).

at 841 (citing State v. Milton , , 799 (Minn. 2012) ), "police with legitimate business may enter areas within the curtilage of the home if those areas are impliedly open to the public," id.

State v. Milton , , 805 (Minn. 2012).

-99 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

The intentionally aiding element “embodies two important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotations omitted).

(“[ W]e review the unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error.”).

Plain-error review requires us to determine whether there was “(1) error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected [appellant’s] substantial rights.”

We review the district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citation omitted); see also State v. Lugo , -85 (Min n. 2016) (holding same standard applies to state’s pretrial appeals).

The intent element of aiding and abetting “embodies two important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted); (stating that aiding and abetting first -degree murder requires proof that the defendant “knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime and .

If all three elements of plain-error review are satisfied, a reviewing court may decide whether to addr ess the error to ensu re “fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’”

(concluding that omission of instruction was not plain error because no prior case had clearly required that instruction).

Under the plain -error test, appellant must show an “(1) error, (2) that was 8 plain, and (3) that affected [appellant’s] substantial rights.” d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

To accomplish those goals, “jury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense to the jury.”

d 789, 807 (Minn. 2012).

Under the plain-error test, appellant must show (1) an e rror, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected appellant’s “substantial rights.”

We review the district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citations omitted).

“An error affects a defendant's substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on 9 the jury's verdict.” (quotation omitted).