Cited by

Although we will rely only on the district court’s findings that are not infected with clear error, d 789, 798 (Minn. 2012), and the parties assert that various findings are clearly erroneous, we do not deem the fact disputes material.

The phrase “intentionally aids” includes two “important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant ‘knew that his alleged accomplices were 4 going to commit a crime,’ and (2) that the defendant ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.’ ” ().

was “no evidence that [he] knew that the purpose of the assault was to rob the victim.” To prove that a defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting, the prosecution must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) [the defendant] knew his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and that (2) he intended his presence and actions to further the commission of that crime.”

1, a person is criminally liable for another’s crime if he “intentionally aids” the other to commit that crime, which the supreme court has explained “embodies two important and necessary principles: (1) the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotations omitted).

(stating that when a defendant fails to object to jury instructions during trial, this court has the discretion to review the issue on appeal for plain error).

“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress [evidence], we review the district court’s factual findings under our clearly erroneous standard.” (citation omitted).

“[T]he element of ‘intentionally aiding’ 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.’” ().

The element of ‘“intentionally aiding’ 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.”

(directing courts to use plain- error standard when reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions).

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

8 Finally, Kilbo argues in his reply brief that the district court erred by not instructing the jury that in order to find Kilbo guilty as an accomplice, it must find that he knew his alleged accomplice was going to commit a crime and he intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime

But a jury 5 instruction that fails to include or explain a required element of the crime is erroneous and we must then determine whether the error was plain, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and requires correction to “ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” –07 (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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To return a guilty verdict, the jury had to find, among other things: “(1) that [Caldwell] ‘knew that [Kirk] w[as] going to commit a criine,’ and (2) that [Caldwell] ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.’ ” ().

If these prongs are met, “we then decide whether we must address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

due to the fact that the common areas are not subject to the exclusive control of one tenant and are utilized by tenants generally and the numerous visitors attracted to a multiple-occupancy building.” (quotations omitted).