Opinion ID: 1577759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Connecting a Third Party to the Offense.

Text: The majority acknowledges that Nichols was present at the scene of the crime at the time the second shot was fired, but implies that some evidence beyond Richardson's proffered eyewitness testimony would be necessary to connect Nichols to the shooting. I disagree. First, we have held that the acknowledgement of the third person that she was present at the scene of the crime provides adequate foundation. See, e.g., Hawkins, 260 N.W.2d at 160; Flores, 595 N.W.2d at 868 (We have held that sufficient evidence is offered when the third party was a key witness for the state and was by his own testimony connected to the scene of the crime.). Thus, Nichols' testimony alone would supply the needed foundation. Second, Richardson's proffered testimony not only places Nichols at the scene, it describes her direct participation in the offense. [11]