Cited by

to the potenti al for conflicting motivations behind certain testimony.’ ” Horst, d at 39 ().

(holding that because defendant gave his cousin permission to store contraband in defendant’s garage and allowed gang members into the garage, defendant had constructive possession of the contraband).

under a harmless error analysis.”

1 (2018) (stating a defendant “may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both”); (“[A] person may not be convicted of both theft and receiving stolen property with respect to property involved in the same transaction.”).

“The general test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of section 634.04 is whether he could have 13 been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (quotations and citations omitted).

“A defendant may possess an item jointly with a nother person.” Harris, d at 604 ( n.7 (Minn. 2004)).

Minnesota law recognizes that “the cr edibility of an accomp lice is inherently untrustworthy.” State v. Lee

See State v. Lee , n.7 (Minn. 2004) (holding that a defendant may be convicted of constructively possessing contraband that is jointly possessed with anothe r person).

8 “An accomplice instruction ‘must be given in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.’” ().

A finding of c onstructive possession requires that there be “a strong probability, inferable from the evidence , that the defendant was, at the time, consciously exercising dominion and control over [the contraband].” State v. L ee, Possession of methamphetamine is a felony -level offense for which a custodial arrest is authorized.

d 309, 316 (Minn. 2004) (stating omission of jury instruction is subject to harmless error review).

11 charged.” State v. Lee , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, a defendant “may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.” n.7 (Minn. 2004); d 284, 287-88 (Minn. 1985) (concluding evidence sufficient to infer defendant jointly possessed marijuana found in defendant’s bedroom with owner of the house).

tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumsta nces thereof.” The district court must give an accomplice-testimony instruction “‘in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.’” (quoting State v. Shoop , 6 ).

Moreover, this court “evaluate[s] the erroneous omission of a jury instruction under a harmless error analysis.”

“The test for determining if a witness is an accomplice is whether the witn ess could have been ‘indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.’” (quoting State v. Lee , ).

It would 4 An appellate court “evaluate[s] the erroneous omission of a jury instruction under a harmless error analysis.”

See State v. Lee , -17 & n.7 (Minn. 2004) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on constructive possession where evidence showed that stolen firearms were stored in defendant’s garage); -63 (Minn. 1982) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on c

A jury instruction on accomplice testimony “must be given in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.” (quotation omitted).

A defe ndant “may not be conv icted of both theft and receiving stolen property with respect to property involved in the same transaction.”

Under the statute, “[a] defendant may not be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.”

is whether he could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.’” ().

Harris, d at 601 ( n.7 (Minn. 2004)).

28, 1990); -17 & n.7 (Minn. 2004) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that stolen firearms and marijuana were stored in defendant’s garage); State v. Olson , d 661, 662-63 (Minn. 1982) (affirming conviction of unlawful possession of firearm based on evidence that loaded fire

“[Appellate courts] evaluate [an] erro neous omission of a jury instruction under a harmless error analysis.”

Courts have found that this factor is not satisfied when a witness is compelled to testify under a grant of use immunity, or when a witne ss testifies to his agreement w ith the state and thus fully informs the jury of his role at trial, Horst, d at 38-39.

Harris, d at 601 ( n.7 (Minn. 2004)).

A district court must give an accomplice-corroboration instruction if a witness “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (quotation omitted).

“The test for determining if a witness is an accomplice is whether the witness could have been ‘indicted and convicted for the crim e with which the defend ant is charged.’” (d 309, 314 (Minn. 2004)).

See State v. Lee , (holding that “a person may not be convicted of both theft and receiving stolen property with respect to property involved in the same transaction .”).

317 n.7 (Minn. 2004); -86 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to infer that the defendant jointly possessed the marijuana found in the defendant’s bedroom with the owner of the house).

(stating that appellate courts evaluate the erroneous omission of a jury instruction under a harmless error analysis).

d 309, 315 (Minn. 2004) (noting that, when definitions of criminal offenses overlap, “the state has the discretion to charge a person with the offense which is best supported by the available evidence and which carries a penalty commensurate with the culpable acts involved”).

The instruction informs the jury that an accomplice’s testimony must be “corroborated by other evidence that tends to convict the defendant of the crime.” n.6 (Minn. 2004) (quoting 10 Minn. Dist.

A witness is an accomplice if the witness “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (quotation omitted).