Cited by

–98, 203–04 (Minn. 2001) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of two robberies committed 4 to 5 months before the charged murder to show “the close relationship” and careful planning and execution of the crimes by the defendant and his accomplice).

Appellate courts review the sufficiency of evidence corroborating an accomplice’s testimony in the same way they review a sufficiency challenge: “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts in the evidence resolved in favor of the verdict.”

“We ‘review the evidence just as we would on a sufficiency challenge—in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts in the evidence resolved in favor of the verdict.’ ” ().

Appellate courts review the sufficiency of evidence corroborating an accomplice’s testimony in the same way they review a sufficiency challenge: “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts in the evidence resolved in favor of the verdict.”

14 A. Standard of review The parties generally agree that “in revi ewing the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence of an accomplice’s testimony, we revi ew the evidence just as we would on a sufficiency challenge—in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts in the evidence resolved in favor of the verdict.” State v. Nelson

We “review the evidence just as we would on a sufficiency challenge—in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts in the ev idence resolved in favor of the verdict.” see also Smith, d at 264; State v. Chavarria-Cruz

State v. Nelson , , 202 (Minn. 2001).

Thus, corroborating eviden ce may take the form of “evide nce of the accused’s relationship with the accomplice,” evidence of “opportunity and motive,” and evidence of a defendant’s “proximity to the place where the crime was commi tted.” State v. Nelson , (quotation omitted).

State v. Nelson , , 202 (Minn. 2001).

“[I]n revi ewing the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence of an accomplice’s testimony, we revi ew the evidence just as we would on a sufficiency challenge—in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts 6 in the evidence resolved in favor of the verdict.” see Clark, d at 253-55.

(concluding that Spreigl evidence of a prior bank robbery was admissible in the appellant’s aiding and abetting first-degree-murder trial “for the limited purposes of showing absence of mistake or identity as joint actors”); (concluding that Spreigl evidence of two prior armed robberies was relevant in the appellant’s aiding and abetting first-degree- murder trial to show that the appellant and his accomplice “worked together closely to 6 coordinate their criminal activity”

In State v. Nelson, we concluded that Spreigl evidence in that case was relevant to show that the defendant and his accomplice “worked together closely to coordinate their criminal activity.”