State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1596

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Eric Jerome Goodman,
Appellant.

Filed August 28, 2017
Affirmed
Smith, John*
Jay D. Carlson
Becker County District Court
File No. 03-CR-15-2016

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Karen B. McGillic, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Tammy L. Merkins, Becker County Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge, Bratvold, Judge, and Smith,
John, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, JOHN Judge
We affirm appellant’s conviction of first-degree aggravated robbery because the
conviction was not based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.
FACTS
Two men robbed a tobacco store in Detroit Lakes. One of the men pointed a gun
at the cashier and demanded money. The cashier gave the man the cash register. After the
men left, the cashier called 911. While reviewing the footage from the security camera,
law enforcement noticed one of the men was wearing distinct, bright blue shoes. Several
weeks later, law enforcement went to the home of S.B. while investigating an unrelated
matter. George Taylor was at the home when law enforcement arrived. Becker County
Investigator Dan Skoog observed the blue shoes at the foot of Taylor’s bed. Detroit Lakes
Police Investigator Eric Bergren subsequently applied for a search warrant. Law
enforcement executed the search warrant the same day. They located the shoes, but they
were no longer at the foot of the bed. Rather, they had been stuffed inside the arms of a
sweatshirt and moved to the basement.
Becker County Sheriff’s Deputy Luke Sweere interviewed M.N. about an unrelated
burglary. Deputy Sweere asked M.N. if she knew anything about the robbery at the tobacco
store. She replied “Yes, I know everything. I was there.” She explained that on the day
of the robbery she was with her sister B.N., Taylor, and appellant Eric Jerome Goodman.
She indicated that Taylor and Goodman wanted to go to the tobacco store. She and B.N.
remained in the car. When Taylor and Goodman returned to the car, Goodman had the
3
cash register. Investigator Bergren later interviewed B.N. B.N. similarly stated that Taylor
and Goodman went to the tobacco store and when they returned Goodman had the cash
register. Both M.N. and B.N. stated that they did not participate in or know about the
robbery beforehand.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Goodman with one count of first-degree
aggravated robbery. Taylor pleaded guilty to second-degree aggravated robbery based on
his role in the theft. At Goodman’s trial, Taylor testified that he was one of the two men
who robbed the tobacco store. But he indicated that Goodman was not the second robber.
Rather, he testified that he and K.B. robbed the store, and that K.B. was the individual who
took the cash register. B.N. and M.N. testified that Goodman was the second individual
who committed the robbery. Goodman argued that B.N. and M.N. were accomplices to
the robbery, and therefore that their testimony had to be corroborated. The district court
determined that whether B.N. or M.N. were accomplices was a question of fact for the jury.
The district court instructed the jury that it would have to determine if either were
accomplices, and that if they did determine they were accomplices then their testimony
would have to be corroborated. The jury found Goodman guilty. The district court
sentenced Goodman to 108 months in prison. .
D E C I S I O N
Goodman argues that B.N. and M.N. were accomplices to the robbery at the tobacco
store. Accomplice testimony is inherently suspect and is insufficient to sustain a conviction
unless corroborated by other evidence. State v. Jackson, 746 N.W.2d 894, 898 (Minn.
2008). Generally, the test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is whether
4
she “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is
charged.” State v. Reed, 737 N.W.2d 572, 582 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted). An
individual who aids and abets the defendant may be considered an accomplice, but an
individual’s mere presence at the scene, knowledge, or passive acquiescence are
insufficient to impose liability. State v. Palubicki, 700 N.W.2d 476, 487 (Minn. 2005).
When the issue of whether an individual should be considered an accomplice is subject to
different interpretations, it becomes a question of fact for the jury. Staunton v. State, 784
N.W.2d 289, 298 (Minn. 2010). We view the evidence in a light most f avorable to the
verdict to determine if the jury could have reasonably concluded that an individual was not
an accomplice. Id.
The state argues that the jury could have reasonably determined that B.N. and M.N.
were not accomplices. We agree. During the investigation and trial, both B.N. and M.N.
consistently claimed ignorance of the robbery and stated that they did not know about the
plan until after the robbery occurred. Goodman essentially argues that this testimony is
not credible based on their behavior before and after the robbery. He notes that the group
was in B.N.’s car, that M.N. testified that Taylor and Goodman had weapons and were
wearing bandanas covering their faces when they left the car, and that M.N. testified she
gave Taylor and Goodman pellet guns several days before the robbery. But M.N. testified
that she did not know the men were going to rob the store, did not know what the men
planned to use the pellet guns for, and denied acting as a lookout. B.N. similarly testified
that she did not have knowledge of the robbery until after it occurred. She testified that
5
when Taylor and Goodman exited the vehicle they just said “they’d be right back.” She
did not see a gun until after they returned to the vehicle.
On this record, the jury could reasonably have determined that B.N. and M.N. were
not accomplices. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and
in doing so we “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved
evidence contradicting those witnesses.” State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 519 (Minn.
1999). Accordingly, we must assume the jury credited the testimony of B.N. and M.N.
And while they conceded that they received money following the robbery, being an
accessory after the fac t does not make an individual an accomplice. State v. Cox, 820
N.W.2d 540, 550 (Minn. 2012). Because the jury could reasonably have concluded that
B.N. and M.N. were not accomplices, their testimony did not need to be corroborated.
Sufficient evidence supports Goodman’s conviction.
Affirmed.