Aiding and Abetting in Minnesota: Being Charged for Someone Else's Crime

What the Law Says (Minn. Stat. § 609.05)

Under Minnesota's accomplice-liability statute, a person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if they "intentionally aid, advise, hire, counsel, or conspire with or otherwise procure" the other person to commit it. There is no separate crime called "aiding and abetting" — instead, the statute is a way of charging you with the underlying offense itself (for example, aiding a robbery means you're charged with the robbery).

What this means for you: If convicted as an accomplice, you're responsible for the crime as if you committed it — including for sentencing. You don't have to be the one who "pulled the trigger" to be held just as responsible.

The Two Things the State Must Prove

The phrase "intentionally aids" has been interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court (in State v. Milton) to require two distinct elements:

1. that you knew the other person was going to commit (or was committing) a crime; and
2. that you intended your presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.

Both are required. Helping by accident, or being caught up in events without intending to assist a crime, does not meet this standard. And intending to help with a different or lesser crime ordinarily isn't enough to make you liable for what actually happened.

"Mere Presence" Is Not Enough

This is one of the most important protections. Simply being present when a crime occurs — even knowing it's happening — does not, by itself, make you guilty of aiding and abetting. The Minnesota Supreme Court has said the statute implies "a high level of activity" in the form of conduct that encourages the crime; "mere inaction" or "passive approval" is not enough on its own.

That said, presence can become aiding if it actually assists or encourages the crime — the classic example is acting as a lookout. And presence is something a jury is allowed to weigh together with other evidence — like your relationship to the people involved, whether you objected, whether you fled with them, or whether you helped conceal evidence afterward.

What this means for you: The line between being present and being an accomplice turns on intent and conduct. This is frequently the central battleground in these cases — and where good defense work focuses.

What Evidence Courts Look At

Because intent is usually proven by circumstances rather than a confession, courts consider things like:

• presence at the scene and whether you objected or tried to stop the crime;
• your conduct before, during, and after the offense;
• planning, arranging, or obtaining materials;
• close association with the principal offender;
• helping someone escape, or concealing evidence;
• acting as a lookout, decoy, or intimidating presence;
• flight, lying, or other indications of a guilty role.

No single one of these is automatically enough — they're weighed together. And when someone wasn't even present and the case is built entirely on circumstantial evidence, the courts apply a "higher level of scrutiny" that must exclude any rational explanation other than guilt.

Liability for Other "Foreseeable" Crimes

Here's a part that surprises many people. If you intentionally aid one crime, you can also be liable for another crime committed by your accomplice — if that other crime was "reasonably foreseeable as a probable consequence" of the crime you intended to help with.

For example, if you help plan a robbery and someone is seriously hurt or killed during it, you could be held responsible for that result too — even if it wasn't the plan and you didn't do it personally — if it was a foreseeable probable consequence. The state doesn't have to prove you predicted the exact crime with certainty, but the jury must find it was reasonably foreseeable to you, beyond a reasonable doubt.

What this means for you: Accomplice liability can reach further than people expect. Agreeing to help with one offense can expose you to liability for more serious crimes that grow out of it. This makes the scope of what you allegedly agreed to a critical issue.

Defenses and Limits

Withdrawal / Abandonment

If you initially agreed to help but then abandoned that purpose and made a reasonable effort to prevent the crime before it happened, you can avoid liability. Simply changing your mind quietly isn't enough — communicating your withdrawal in a way meant to stop the crime is the kind of thing that counts. The further along the plan and the bigger your initial role, the more effort it takes to qualify as a "reasonable effort" to stop it.

Lack of Shared Criminal Purpose

If the evidence doesn't show you actually shared the criminal purpose, assistance alone isn't a basis for liability. Knowledge without the intent to further the crime is not enough.

Accomplice Testimony Must Be Corroborated

Minnesota has a powerful protection here: you cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice — even if the jury finds that testimony credible. There must be independent evidence connecting you to the crime. The jury must be instructed on this when accomplice testimony is a significant part of the state's case.

Other Important Points

• The principal's outcome doesn't control yours. You can be convicted as an accomplice even if the person who directly committed the crime was acquitted, convicted of a different degree or crime, or is a juvenile not found delinquent.
• You can be charged as a principal and convicted as an aider. An aiding-and-abetting jury instruction is generally allowed even if the charging document didn't specifically allege it.
• This is different from being an accessory after the fact. Aiding and abetting requires the intent to assist at or before the crime. Helping someone after a crime to avoid arrest is a separate offense. (See our page on accessory after the fact.)

Key Terms

• Aiding and abetting / accomplice liability: Being liable for a crime you helped another commit.
• Intentionally aids: Knowing of the crime and intending your conduct to further it.
• Mere presence: Being at the scene — not enough by itself for liability.
• Probable consequence: A foreseeable additional crime for which an accomplice can also be liable.
• Withdrawal: Abandoning the plan and making a reasonable effort to prevent the crime.