State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason, A15-1755

Background

Mason was charged with first‑degree aggravated robbery and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person after he bought a BB gun for a co‑defendant, drove the group to meet a marijuana seller, and participated in a nighttime car robbery in which a BB gun was brandished.
Text messages and Mason’s own statements showed he bought the BB gun shortly after being told to “hit a lick for some weed,” rode in the vehicle during the encounter, told the victim to move his hands, and accepted some of the stolen marijuana afterward.
A jury convicted Mason of both counts; the district court imposed a 216‑month executed sentence on the aggravated‑robbery conviction (an upward durational departure based on five or more prior felonies and a finding of a pattern of criminal conduct) and a concurrent 60‑month term on the firearm‑possession count.
On appeal Mason challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for aiding/abetting aggravated robbery, (2) a jury instruction that referenced “reasonable foreseeability,” (3) admission of an officer’s opinion at sentencing about a criminal‑conduct pattern, and (4) whether a BB gun qualifies as a “firearm.”
The court affirmed the aggravated‑robbery conviction and the sentencing ruling but, relying on controlling precedent, reversed and vacated the firearm‑possession conviction because an air‑powered BB gun is not a “firearm.”

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mason)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding/abetting first‑degree aggravated robbery	Circumstantial evidence (texts, purchase of BB gun, driving, actions during robbery, receipt of marijuana) shows Mason knowingly aided and intended to further the robbery	Mason lacked knowledge and intent; he merely bought the BB gun and did not know a robbery would occur	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove knowledge and intent beyond a reasonable doubt
Jury instruction referencing "reasonably foreseeable" conduct in accomplice liability	Instruction was supported by trial evidence and prosecutor’s expansive‑liability theory	Instruction erroneously substituted foreseeability for the required intent and relieved the state of burden to prove intent	Affirmed — no plain error; instruction justified by evidence and did not negate intent requirement; any error not prejudicial
Admitting investigating officer’s opinion that defendant’s priors formed a "pattern" at sentencing	State relied on the jury’s pattern finding; prior convictions and case facts support pattern finding without the opinion	Officer’s opinion improperly invaded the jury function and increased sentence factors beyond prior convictions	Affirmed as to sentence — even if admission was error, not plain or prejudicial because overwhelming evidence supported pattern finding
Whether a BB gun is a "firearm" for Minn. Stat. § 624.713 ineligibility charge	Firearm‑possession count was tried; state later conceded Haywood applies	BB gun is not a firearm under the statute	Reversed — conviction vacated; air‑powered BB gun not a firearm under controlling precedent

Key Cases Cited

State v. McAllister, 862 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2015) (defines "intentionally aids" for accomplice liability and lists circumstantial factors for inferring mental state)
State v. Anderson, 789 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. 2010) (framework for reviewing sufficiency of circumstantial evidence)
State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007) (explains error where jury instruction could relieve prosecution of proving intent to aid)
State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005) (any fact other than prior conviction that increases penalty must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Haywood, 886 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2016) (holds air‑powered BB gun is not a "firearm" under Minnesota law)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (constitutional principle that facts increasing penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury)