## Facts

- In 2005, Larry Larue Clark was indicted for the May 22, 1970 shooting death of St. Paul Police Officer James Sackett, charged as first-degree premeditated murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory.
- Evidence at trial described Clark and Ronald Reed as members of a neighborhood group (the “United Black Front”) that discussed self-protection from police amid high community-police tension.
- A witness testified that group discussions included the idea that killing a police officer would draw national attention and advance political goals.
- On May 22, 1970, a false emergency call reporting a woman in labor summoned police to 859 Hague Avenue; Officer Sackett responded and was fatally shot by a sniper using a single-shot, bolt-action rifle.
- Constance Trimble (Reed’s girlfriend) admitted making the false call; voice-print evidence supported that she was the caller.
- Trimble testified Reed asked her to place the call and that Reed drove her to Clark’s house afterward.
- Clark lived about 102 yards from the shooting location, and witnesses reported seeing Clark and Reed with a rifle similar to the murder weapon.
- The State introduced evidence of Clark’s 1971 bank-robbery conviction (involving Reed and a shooting of a police officer) as other-crimes evidence.
- A Ramsey County jury found Clark guilty; the district court entered judgment and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether an assistant county attorney was authorized to attend the grand jury to frame the indictment and examine witnesses.
2. Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that certain witnesses, including Trimble, were accomplices as a matter of law, requiring corroboration of their testimony.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction given the rule barring convictions based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.
4. Whether the court erred by instructing that the State need not prove Reed was Clark’s conspirator or accomplice despite Reed being named in the indictment.
5. Whether admitting evidence of Clark’s 1971 bank-robbery conviction was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The court held an assistant county attorney may attend the grand jury to frame indictments and examine witnesses under Minnesota statutes governing county attorneys and grand juries.
- The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the failure to give an accomplice-testimony instruction (including as to Trimble) was plain error affecting substantial rights.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to permit retrial because a reasonable jury could find corroboration beyond accomplice testimony.
- The court held the aiding-and-abetting instruction need not mirror the indictment verbatim, and the challenged instruction was not independently reversible error.
- The court upheld admission of the 1971 bank-robbery conviction as relevant other-crimes evidence whose probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Assistant county attorneys may perform grand-jury functions assigned by statute to the county attorney when statutes provide assistants have the same duties as the county attorney.
- A conviction may not rest on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; when a witness could have been charged with the same offense, an accomplice-corroboration instruction is required.
- Failure to give an accomplice-testimony instruction can constitute plain error when it contravenes a well-established rule and materially affects the verdict’s reliability.
- Corroboration need not independently prove guilt; it must support the accomplice’s account and point to the defendant’s guilt in a substantial way, including through circumstantial evidence (association, motive, opportunity, proximity).
- Jury instructions need not track the indictment’s wording if they correctly state the elements of the charged theory (including aiding-and-abetting liability).
- Other-crimes evidence is admissible when relevant to a permitted purpose and when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, typically with limiting instructions.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Clark’s first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial because the district court’s omission of accomplice-testimony corroboration instructions was plain error, while also holding the indictment process was lawful, the evidence was sufficient to allow retrial, the challenged aiding-and-abetting instruction was permissible, and the other-crimes evidence was properly admitted.


State v. Clark, 755 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 2008)