State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley
855 N.W.2d 269
| Minn. | 2014Background
- Kelley was convicted by a Benton County jury of first-degree aggravated robbery as an accomplice and third-degree assault.
- Trial evidence showed Kelley and a friend assaulted S.A., stole items, and Kelley aided and participated in the robbery.
- District court instructed the jury on standard accomplice liability without Milton’s required detailing of “intentionally aiding.”
- Milton (decided after Kelley’s conviction but before its appellate brief) held the instruction must explain the “intentionally aiding” element.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but said the error was not plain because law was unsettled at trial and settled only by appeal.
- Kelley challenged Rule 31.02 relief on plain-error grounds, arguing the error was plain at Milton but not at trial; the majority adopts plain-at-appellate-review due to unsettled-to-settled law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the accomplice-liability instruction was plain error | Kelley; Milton's rule applied | State; Milton's standard applies | Yes, the instruction violated Milton’s standard, but not plain at trial; plain at appellate review. |
| When plain error is determined under Rule 31.02 | Plainness determined at appellate review (after Milton) | Plainness determined at trial or appellate depending on view | Plain error determined at appellate review (not at trial) under Henderson and Johnson frameworks. |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights | There was significant chance verdict could differ | Record shows substantial evidence of Kelley’s guilt; not likely to change outcome | No substantial-rights effect; affirmed as modified. |
| Relation of Milton to Kelley and retroactivity under Teague/Henderson | Milton should control relief | Retroactivity grounds govern relief | Milton governs plain-error relief when applicable; rule applied via appellate review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milton v. State, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (accomplice instruction must explain 'intentionally aiding' element)
- Griller v. State, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (plain-error review; define prongs; applicability to non-preserved errors)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain-error prong can be satisfied by current-law clarity at appellate review)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error framework and forfeiture vs. waiver reasoning)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (U.S. 2013) (plain-at-time-of-appellate-review rule reaffirmed; uniform standard)