State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1152

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

DeAndray Artez Easley,
Appellant.

Filed May 20, 2019
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-17-4175

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Alexandra Meyer, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Melissa Sheridan, Eagan, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Slieter, 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
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges his convictions for aiding and abetting first -degree criminal
sexual conduct , arguing that the state failed to present sufficient evidence tha t he
intentionally aided his codefendants in committing the offenses. Because the evidence is
sufficient to prove that appellant did intentionally aid his codefendants, we affirm.
FACTS
In June 2017, respondent the S tate of Minnesota (the state) charged appellant
DeAndray Artez Easley with two counts of first-degree aiding and abetting criminal sexual
conduct—penetration with fear of great bodily harm; two counts of aiding aggravated first-
degree robbery; and two counts of kidnapping. Two further counts of kidnap ping were
added in October 2017. The state alleged that appellant, along with three codefendants,
robbed and kidnapped four victims and that appellant aided the co defendants in sexually
assaulting the two female victims.
Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty on all counts. He challenges his
aiding and abetting criminal-sexual-conduct convictions, arguing that the state failed to
present sufficient evidence to support those charges because the evidence did not support
the jury’s determination that he intentionally aided the codefendants.
D E C I S I O N
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court is limited to ascertaining
whether a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense
charged, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from

3
those facts. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476 (Minn. 2004). This court considers
the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict when it reviews a claim for
insufficient evidence. Id. at 477.
To convict appellant of aiding and abetting first-degree criminal sexual conduct, the
state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally aided the
codefendants when they committed the sexual assaults and ma de no reasonable effort to
prevent the crimes before they were committed. Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subds. 1, 3 (2016);
10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 4.01, .02 (2016). A defendant’s presence will constitute
aiding if he: (1) knew that his alleged accomplices were going to or were committing a
crime, and (2) intended that his presence or actions aid the commission of the crime. State
v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 806 ( Minn. 2012). Because the “ intentionally aids” element
of accomplice liability is a state -of-mind requirement, it is generally proved through
circumstantial evidence. State v. McAllister, 862 N.W.2d 49, 53 (Minn. 2015).
This court applies a two -step analysis when it reviews a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). First, we
identify the circumstances proved. Id. When we identify the circumstances proved, this
court defers “to the jury’s acceptance of the pr oof of these circumstances and rejection of
evidence in the record that conflict with the circumstances proved by the State.” Id. at 598-
99 (quotation omitted). Conflicting evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the
verdict, and we assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved the
defense witnesses. Id. at 599. Under the second step, “we determine whether the
circumstances proved are consis tent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational

4
hypothesis except that of guilt . . . [and] review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated
facts, but as a whole. Id. (quotation and citation omitted).
The state proved the following circumstances at trial: (1) appellant and his group
participated in the robbery of two boys and two girls; (2) one of the female victims testified
that appellant was the “leader” of the group; (3) appellant instructed the victims to
deactivate any tracking software on their phones and to hand them over; (4) the two female
victims were taken to a vehicle and forced to perform sexual acts on the codefendants and
one of the victims told appellant that she was not con senting to what was going on;
(5) appellant walked away and did not stop his codefendants from carrying out the sexual
assaults; (6) appellant held the two male victims at gun point outside the vehicle as the
sexual assaults were carried out; (7) appellant cleaned areas of the vehicle’s interior with a
blanket or a shirt when the codefendants were finished sexually assaulting the female
victims; (8) appellant threw the car keys and threatened the victims that they would be shot
if they left too soon ; and (9) appellant was seen with the co defendants at a convenience
store after the robbery and sexual assaults.
Appellant concedes that there is rational hypotheses consistent with guilt , but he
argues that there is also a rational hypothesis that his actions were not done to intentionally
aid his codefendants because evidence showed he disapproved of and attempted to distance
himself from the sexual activity. Appellant’s argument is flawed. First, we cannot consider
the testimony and evidence that may have shown that appellant disapproved of and
attempted to distance himself from the activity because they are inconsistent with the guilty
verdict and are not circumstances proved. See State v. Hawes, 801 N.W.2d 659, 669 (Minn.

5
2011) (when determining the circumstance proved, “we disregard testimony that is
inconsistent with the verdict.”) ; Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 599 (we assume the jury
disbelieved the defense witnesses).
Second, contrary to appellant’s argument, the state did not have to prove that
appellant committed an overt act or encouraged the other defendants to commit the sexual
assaults. See Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subds. 1, 3 (2016); Milton, 821 N.W.2d at 806. Thus,
appellant’s proposed alternative hypothesis, that th e evidence showed appellant “tried to
distance himself from the sexual activity when he di scovered it was occurring” and there
was “no evidence that [appellant] did anything to encourage the others” does not affect
whether he could be found guilty of intentionally aiding and abetting first -degree sexual
assault.
Moreover, intent to aid can be inferred “from a variety of facts, including presence
at the scene of the crime, a close association with the principal offender before and after
the crime, a lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and flight from the scene
of the crime with the principal offender.” State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804, 810 (Minn.
2013). Considering these factors, the circumstances proved show that appellant was at the
scene of the sexual assault, was described as the “leader” of the group, did not object to his
codefendants carrying out the offenses, and left and remained with the principal offenders.
See State v. Lahue , 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998) (An appellate court “will not
overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”).

6

Consequently, considering the evidence as a whole, there is no rational hypothesis
inconsistent with guilt.
Affirmed.