## Facts

- Larry Leventhal, a University of Minnesota law student, encountered a couple late at night and offered them a ride; he later accompanied them into their residence.
- Leventhal drove several people, including Calvin Earl Sam and John William Parker, in his car to get food.
- During the drive, Leventhal was beaten, robbed of his wallet and watch, and his car was taken.
- Police soon stopped Leventhal’s stolen car; occupants fled, and Parker was apprehended while fleeing.
- Leventhal testified Parker participated in the assault and robbery.
- Parker admitted being present but claimed he did not participate and was only a bystander; he also gave a police statement admitting presence while denying participation.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Parker of aggravated robbery as an aider and abettor under Minn. Stat. § 609.05, given his claim of mere presence.
2. Whether the aiding-and-abetting jury instructions improperly suggested liability based on a general “duty” to act and, if so, whether the instruction required reversal.
3. Whether the lineup and identification procedures violated due process or required counsel’s presence, rendering identification evidence inadmissible.

## Decision

- The conviction for aggravated robbery was affirmed.
- The evidence permitted the jury to find Parker intentionally aided and abetted the robbery.
- The aiding-and-abetting instructions, considered as a whole, were substantially correct; any minor misstatement was not preserved by timely objection and was not reversible error.
- The lineup procedures were not shown to be unfair or prejudicial, and the right-to-counsel-at-lineup rule was not applied retroactively to Parker’s case.

## Legal Principles

- Under Minn. Stat. § 609.05, a defendant may be liable as a principal if he intentionally aids, advises, counsels, conspires with, or otherwise procures another to commit a crime; personal commission of the overt criminal act is not required.
- Presence at a crime, when combined with surrounding circumstances (including knowledge, failure to disapprove or oppose, companionship, conduct before and after the offense, and flight), may support an inference that the defendant assented to and intentionally aided the offense.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability cannot rest on “mere presence” alone, but presence may be sufficient if intended to, and in fact does, aid the primary actors.
- Alleged instructional error generally must be raised by timely objection; where the charge as a whole correctly states the law, minor verbal inaccuracies not objected to at trial typically do not warrant reversal.
- Identification evidence is not excluded absent a showing that lineup procedures were impermissibly suggestive or prejudicial; counsel-at-lineup requirements recognized in later decisions were treated as prospective only for lineups conducted earlier.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Parker’s aggravated-robbery conviction, holding that the jury could infer intentional aiding and abetting from Parker’s presence and conduct during and after the offense, that the challenged instructions did not warrant reversal, and that the preexisting lineup identification procedures did not violate due process or require counsel under nonretroactive lineup-counsel rules.


State v. Parker, 164 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1969)