Cited by

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

To challenge the instruction on “intentionally aiding and abetting,” (finding error when district court instructed jury as to “the elements of first-degree felony murder and attempted first- 12 degree felony murder, but .

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).

[and] the district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citation omitted).

(noting that appellate courts review claims of prosecutorial misconduct to determine whether the conduct, in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial).

“We review prosecutorial misconduct to determine whether the conduct, in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

In State v. Milton, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “a resident of a multifamily residence has a diminished expectation of privacy in the common areas surrounding the residence” because 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).

When reviewing pretrial orders on suppression motions, we review for clear error the district court’s factual findings, review de novo its legal determination, and review de novo its “determination of reasonable suspicion of illegal activity,” d 346, 350 (Minn. 2012).

“The defendant bears the heavy burden of proving that the error was prejudicial.” (quotation omitted).

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

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

The phrase “intentionally aids” in the accomplice-liability statute includes 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.’ ” ().

Although we have never expressly adopted the reasoning of Neder , we implicitly held that the erroneous omission of an element of the charged offense from the jury instruction is subject to review as a -09 (Minn.2012), and Mahkuk, d at 683 .

These dates are important because, on September 19, 2012, a case that directly addresses the jury instruction that appellant is challenging before us. Milton appealed his conviction of charges of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree felony murder that the state brought in response to a botched drug deal.