Cited by

“[W]hen a defendant timely objects to a jury instruction, we apply the harmless- error analysis to determine whether the error requires reversal.” n.3 (Minn. 2013)

A jury instruction about the need for corroboration of 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).

Even if the district court’s instruction was erroneous, a new trial would be warranted only if the error “might have prompted the jury, which is presumed to be reasonable, to reach a harsher verdict than it might have otherwise reached.” (quotation omitted).

This type of constructive possession is consistent with the doctrine of “joint” possession, which provides that “[a] person may constructively possess [contraband] alone or with others.” Denison, d at 799; n.7 (Minn. 2004).

“An accomplice[-liability] instruction must be given in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.” d 309, 315 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

1(4); (“Over the years, the words used by the Minnesota legislature to describe the conduct proscribed in the theft and receiving stolen property statutes evolved, overlapping sufficiently so that in a prosecution for receiving stolen property, it is no defense that the defendant was the thief.”).

A jury instruction about the need for corroboration of 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.” 5 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

See, n.7 (Minn. 2004); State v. 5 Robinson, -29 (Minn. 1982).

(holding that the erroneous omission of a jury instruction is reviewed under a harmless-error analysis).

Constructive possession requires (1) that the contraband be found in a place under the defendant’s exclusive control or (2) “a strong probability, inferable from the evidence, that the defendant was, at the time, consciously exercising dominion and control over [the contraband].” -17 n.7 (Minn. 2004).

at 105 , d at 611 ; , 316-17 n. 7 (Minn.2004).

at 364 ; (-81 (Minn.1989)).

“A person may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.” , 316 n. 7 (Minn.2004).

*548 316 (Minn.2004); -81 (Minn.1989).

(“We evaluate the erroneous omission of a jury instruction under a harmless error analysis.”).

The test for whether a particular “witness is an accomplice is whether the witness could have been ‘indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.’ ” ().

is one of fact for the jury.’ ” ().

316 n. 7 (Minn.2004) (explaining that if the police find the contraband in a place where others have access, the constructive-possession doctrine requires “a strong probability, inferable from the evidence, that the defendant was, at the time, consciously exercising dominion and control over it”).

The test for determining if a witness is an accomplice is whether the witness could have been “indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.”

the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense.” Because an accomplice’s credibility is inherently untrustworthy, “[a]n 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.’ ” ().

“upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense.” Because an accomplice’s credibility is inherently suspect, “[a]n 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.’ ” ().

Generally, the “test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of section 634.04 is whether he could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (internal quotation marks omitted).