State v. Kelley, 2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 61

Background

In January 2011 Kelley participated in a violent beating of a 17‑year‑old at a party; the victim was robbed and suffered serious dental and soft‑tissue injuries.
Kelley was tried by jury and convicted of first‑degree aggravated robbery and third‑degree assault; at trial the state requested accomplice‑liability instructions over Kelley's objection that the theory was raised too late.
The district court instructed the jury using standard Minnesota accomplice‑liability language but did not explain that “intentionally aided” requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the accomplice would commit the crime and intended his presence to further it.
Kelley did not object at trial on the specific ground now raised on appeal (that the instruction failed to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the accomplice elements), so the issue is reviewed under the plain‑error rubric.
The Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently clarified the accomplice instruction issue in State v. Milton, holding that juries must be instructed that the accomplice element requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of (1) knowledge that accomplices would commit a crime and (2) intent that the defendant’s presence further the crime.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s accomplice‑liability instruction was erroneous for failing to tell the jury that "intentionally aided" requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of knowledge and intent	Kelley: the instruction relieved the State of its burden by not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of accomplice knowledge and intent	State: the instruction followed standard CRIMJIG language and was proper; any error was not preserved	The instruction was erroneous under Milton because it omitted the required explanation of "intentionally aided"
Whether the error is plain for purposes of unobjected‑to review	Kelley: error is plain because Milton later made the law clear	State: error was not plain at the time of trial; review should apply settled plain‑error standards	Error was not plain at the time of trial (court applies a time‑of‑error approach and declines to adopt Henderson’s time‑of‑appeal rule for Minnesota)
Whether the error affected Kelley’s substantial rights (prejudice)	Kelley: the instruction could have allowed conviction without proof of accomplice mental state	State: record shows Kelley actively participated in the assault and engaged in conduct indicating knowledge of the robbery; harmless	No substantial‑rights violation — the record supported a finding Kelley knew and intended the robbery or acted as a principal
Whether the error seriously affected fairness and integrity of proceedings (need for reversal)	Kelley: reversal required if instruction was plain and prejudicial	State: trial was complete and adversarial; new trial would be futile	No — fairness and integrity not undermined; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (requires jury instruction to explain that "intentionally aided" means defendant knew accomplices would commit a crime and intended his presence to further it)
State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007) (held an instruction that only asked jury to "consider" accomplice knowledge and intent relieved prosecution of burden)
State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 2011) (standard of review: district court’s decision to give requested jury instruction reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (articulates federal plain‑error test for unobjected‑to errors)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (for some unpreserved errors, it is sufficient that error be plain at time of appellate consideration)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (cautions courts against reflexive reversal for unpreserved errors; emphasizes futility and waste concerns)
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (adopts federal plain‑error framework for unobjected‑to errors in Minnesota)
State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2006) (discusses Minnesota’s adaptation of plain‑error review and burden shifting in some contexts)