State v. Smith, 901 N.W.2d 657

On Dec. 21, 2013, Chadric McKee assaulted N.N., pointed a gun at A.M., and took property from J.F.; Daley Marie Smith (appellant) accompanied McKee to the residence and left with him.
J.F. had earlier refused to lend appellant money; appellant returned later with McKee after calling J.F. about coming home and rent.
During the attack, appellant stood between A.M. and McKee at times, went to the bedroom where J.F. hid, and remained while McKee took J.F.’s money, pills, and phone; she did not physically take items or demand them.
Appellant was charged and convicted as an accomplice under Minn. Stat. § 609.05 of first‑degree aggravated robbery, second‑ and third‑degree assault, and simple robbery; the district court instructed the jury using CRIMJIG 4.01 language.
Appellant did not object to the accomplice‑liability instruction at trial and appealed, arguing plain error because the instruction allowed conviction based on mere presence or post‑commencement knowledge.

Issue	Smith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the accomplice‑liability instruction was plain error	Instruction deviated from Supreme Court phrasing and allowed conviction without foreknowledge; could permit liability for mere presence	Instruction correctly required both knowledge that a crime was being or would be committed and intent that her presence/actions aid its commission	No plain error; instruction properly stated law and did not permit conviction for mere presence

State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (requires jury be instructed on both knowledge and intent elements of "intentionally aiding")
State v. Huber, 877 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 2016) (reiterates requirement to prove defendant knew accomplice was going to commit crime and intended to aid)
State v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 2014) (reviews adequacy of accomplice‑liability instruction as a whole)
State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007) (explains mens rea elements required for accomplice liability)
State v. McAllister, 862 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2015) (knowledge can be acquired as an altercation progresses and still support accomplice liability)
State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. 2013) (describes knowledge element as proof that accomplice "were going to commit a crime")
State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015) (approves CRIMJIG language and holds that efficacy of aid is not a separate required element)
State v. Williams, 759 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. App. 2009) (mere presence does not by itself establish accomplice liability)
State v. McKenzie, 532 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. 1995) (mens rea for accomplice liability may arise at or before commission)
State v. Russell, 503 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. 1993) (inaction or passive acquiescence alone are insufficient for liability)

Decision: Affirmed.