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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0764

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Richard Theodore Knoll,
Appellant.

Filed March 9, 2020
Affirmed
Segal, Judge

Isanti County District Court
File No. 30-CR-17-154

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

Jeffrey Edblad, Isanti County Attorney, Joel B. Whitlock, Assistant County Attorney,
Cambridge, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Segal,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SEGAL, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of third -degree burglary, arguing that the
district court committed plain error by allowing the prosecutor to introduce evidence of his
accomplice’s guilty plea to the same burglary. We affirm.
FACTS
In the early morning hours of March 3, 2017, T.E. called 911 because he saw a
vehicle park in the driveway of his neighbor’s property in Isanti County . The property
consists of five acres and contains a home, several outbuildings including a large pole barn,
and a number of cars that the property owner collects. The property owner lives in
Minneapolis and asked T.E. to keep an eye on the property when he was away. A deputy
with the Isanti County Sheriff’s Office responded to the 911 call. He found appellant
Richard Theodore Knoll and Jeffrey Sura inside the pole barn on the property and observed
that Knoll was wearing a head lamp . They claimed that they were looking for a car part.
They did not know the property owner and did not have permission to be on the property.
The deputy later discovered methamphetamine inside their vehicle.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Knoll with third -degree burglar y, fifth -
degree controlled-substance crime, and misdemeanor theft. The case against Knoll was
tried to a jury. The state called Sura as a witness. Sura testified that he pleaded guilty to
burglary for his role in the incident. Specifically, he testified that he entered an Alford plea
and explained he did not admit guilt, but pleaded guilty because he believed the evidence

3
against him was substantial. 1 Sura testified that it was his idea to go to the property and
look for a fuel pump for Knoll’s vehicle . Sura stated that he intended to see if someone
was at the house and inquire about purchasing a fuel pump, but that no one answered the
door at the house when he and Knoll knocked. After no one answered the door, he and
Knoll proceeded to look for a fue l pump in the pole barn . Sura testified that if they had
found a fuel pump they intended on returning to the property later to purchase the part .
The property owner testified that the doors to the pole barn were all normally locked and
that he later discovered a door had been “jimmied open” and the “lock had been pried off.”
The jury found Knoll guilty of third -degree burglary but not guilty of fifth -degree
controlled-substance crime or misdemeanor theft. The district court sentenced Knoll to 15
months in prison, stayed execution of the sentence for five years , and placed him on
probation. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Knoll argues that the district court plainly erred by allowing the prosecutor to elicit
testimony about Sura’s guilt y plea to burglary. Because Knoll did not object to the
admission of the statement at trial, we review for plain error. State v. Strommen , 648
N.W.2d 681, 686 (Minn. 2002); see Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02 (providing that plain error
affecting a substantial right can be considered on appeal). Under the plain -error standard,
the appellant must show: “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected [his] substantial

1 See State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1977) (stati ng that in an Alford plea,
a defendant, while maintaining his innocence, pleads guilty because he believes that the
state has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction at trial).

4
rights.” Strommen, 648 N.W.2d at 686. If the three elements of the plain -error standard
are met, an appellate court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (alteration in origi nal)
(quotation omitted). An error is plain when it is clear, obvious, or contravenes caselaw, a
rule or a standard of conduct. State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).
Generally, evidence of an accomplice’s guilty plea is not admissible to pr ove the
guilt of the accused. State v. Cermak, 365 N.W.2d 243, 247 (Minn. 1985). “Such evidence
is not probative of the accused’s guilt and may give rise to the prejudicial inference that,
because the accomplice is guilty, so is the accused.” State v. Dillon, 529 N.W.2d 387, 391
(Minn. App. 1995), remanded on other grounds, 532 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 1995). However,
the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized limited exceptions to this general rule.
Evidence of an accomplice’s guilty plea may be admitted to provide a first-hand narrative
of the events leading up to and after the crime where the accomplice does not testify. State
v. Caine, 746 N.W.2d 339, 351 (Minn. 2008). Evidence of an accomplice’s guilty plea
may also be admitted where it is introduced in anticipation of a defense theory. See
Cermak, 365 N.W.2d at 247 ( stating “the evidence was clearly introduced in anticipation
of defendant’s argument that the charges against her were questionable because they were
not filed for over 1 year after the arrest of . . . the first of the defendants”).
Knoll argues that the district court plainly erred by allowing the prosecutor to elicit
testimony about Sura’s guilty plea. But we need not decide whethe r this constitutes error
that is plain because Knoll has failed to establish the third prong of the test, that the asserted
error affected his substantial rights. Under the plain-error standard, Knoll bears the “heavy

5
burden” to show that any error affected substantial rights. State v. Grille r, 583 N.W.2d
736, 741 (Minn. 1998). “An error affects substantial rights if the error is prejudicial––that
is, if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.”
Strommen, 648 N.W.2d at 688.
The state argues there is no reasonable likelihood that the evidence of Sura’s plea
affected the jury’s verdict because the evidence of Knoll’ s guilt was strong. See State v.
Cao, 788 N.W.2d 710, 717 (Minn. 2010) (stating when determining whether an error
affected a defendant ’s substantial rights the court may consider the strength of the
evidence). We agree. To establish that Knoll committed third -degree burglary, the state
had to show that Knoll entered a building “without consent and with intent to steal or
commit any felony or gross misdemeanor while in the building.” Minn. Stat. § 609.582,
subd. 3 (2016). Knoll was discovered by the deputy inside of the pole barn, and the
property owner testified that neither Knoll nor Sura had permission to be there. Indeed,
neither of them had ever met or spoken to the property owner. Thus, the record contains
clear evidence that Knoll entered a building without consent. The only remaining element
is whether he intended to steal or commit a felony or gross misdemeanor while in the
building.
The evidence of intent to commit a crime is equally strong. Knoll and Sura did not
know the property owner . T hey arrived at this five -acre property in the early morning
hours when it was still mostly dark outside, and Knoll was equipped wit h a headlamp.
They enter ed the pole barn, which, according to the property owner, was locked . The

6
property owner also testified that one of the doors to the pole barn had been “jimmied
open” and the “lock had been pried off.” This evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
Knoll, however, argues that the admission of evidence of Sura’s guilty plea
substantially affected the jury’s verdict because it “allowed the jury to disregard the other
problems with the State’s evidence,” primarily the “innocent explanations for being at the
property.” At trial, Knoll’s theory of defense was that it was Sura’s idea to go to the
property to look for the car part and that he was merely “along for the ride.” Sura’s
testimony at trial supported this defense —Sura testified that he drove and it was his idea
to go to the property to look for the car part. Sura also testified they did not intend to steal
any parts and would have left and returned later to purchase the part from the owner if they
found the part Sura was seeking. Thus, the jury heard the “innocent explanation” for Knoll
being at the property and rejected it.
On this record, we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the admission of
evidence of Sura’s Alford plea substantially impacted the jury’s verdict . Knoll has
therefore failed to establish the admission of the evidence affected his substantial rights
and he is not entitled to relief.
Affirmed.