State v. Hawes, 801 N.W.2d 659

Hawes was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder of Edwin Hawes under Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 and § 609.185(a)(1); sentenced to life imprisonment.
State theory: Hawes helped Andrew commit Edwin's murder; Hawes claimed Andrew killed Edwin without her help.
Evidence was largely circumstantial and included pre- and post-crime conduct, communications, and physical/material evidence linking Hawes to the crime.
Hawes challenged sufficiency of the evidence, the exclusion of Andrew Hawes’s out-of-court statements, and a motion for a new trial based on newly available evidence.
Court affirmed Hawes’s conviction, addressed sufficiency, evidentiary ruling, and denial of the motion for a new trial, and found any evidentiary error harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the circumstantial-evidence standard satisfied for aiding and abetting?	Hawes contends circumstantial evidence supports only accessory after the fact.	State argues circumstances collectively prove Hawes aided and abetted.	Yes; circumstantial evidence suffices when, viewed together, it supports guilt.
Does Ulvinen govern whether Hawes aided and abetted?	Hawes says Ulvinen requires explicit encouragement beyond passive approval.	State says Hawes’ conduct shows knowledge, intent, and facilitation.	No; the circumstances show Hawes aided and abetted, not merely passive approval.
Were Andrew Hawes’s out-of-court statements admissible as declarations against penal interest?	Statements should be admitted under 804(b)(3) with corroborating trustworthiness.	Court excluded; statements were not properly admissible.	Harmless error; substantial evidence already presented to the jury.
Did the district court err in denying Hawes’ motion for a new trial based on newly available evidence?	New affidavit would exonerate Hawes.	Evidence was known to Hawes and counsel at trial; not newly available.	No abuse of discretion; affidavit offered no new information.
Was the defense deprived by exclusion of Andrew’s statements on constitutional grounds to present a complete defense?	Exclusion violated right to present a complete defense.	Most content already presented; exclusion harmless.	Not reversible; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. 1981) (aiding-and-abetting requires more than passive approval)
State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2010) (circumstantial evidence standard; identify proven circumstances then holistic guilt review)
State v. Swanson, 707 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. 2006) (factors for inferring intent from presence and association)
State v. Clark, 755 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 2008) (requires knowledge and intent to further crime for aiding and abetting)
State v. Russell, 503 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. 1993) (state meets burden by showing knowing role in the crime)
State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1999) (newly discovered/available evidence test applying to new trial)
Whittaker v. State, 753 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 2008) (newly discovered/available evidence standard same as newly discovered)
Scherf v. State, 788 N.W.2d 504 (Minn. 2010) (confirms standard for newly available evidence)