This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).






State of Minnesota,





Jeremy Allen Robb,



Filed December 26, 2001


Gordon W. Shumaker, Judge


Blue Earth County District Court

File No. K3001140





Mike Hatch, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and


Ross E. Arneson, Blue Earth County Attorney, 410 South Fifth Street, Box 3129, Mankato, MN 56002 (for respondent)


John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Scott G. Swanson, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)


Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Halbrooks, Judge, and Stoneburner, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N




Appellant Jeremy Allen Robb contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of aiding and abetting assault in the second degree.  Because there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, we affirm.


On June 9, 2000, Ronald Volk and his brother invited some friends to a party at their home.  Appellant Jeremy Allen Robb was not invited but, late in the evening, he and Chad Landwer were part of a group of people who came to the party anyway.

At one point, Robb and Landwer became involved in an argument and a physical altercation with others at the party.  They were asked to leave and they did.

About an hour later, Robb and Landwer returned with Tim Harroun.  Soon a fight broke out.  Volk’s brother testified that he saw Harroun and Robb repeatedly strike Ronald Volk with fists, feet, a baseball bat, and a metal bar.  Ronald Volk testified that Robb and Harroun hit him several times with what he thought was a pole.  The Volks’ cousin, Ryan Stoltzman, testified that he saw Robb and others beating Ronald Volk.  Medical evidence showed that Ronald Volk sustained a basilar skull fracture consistent with blunt-force trauma.

An investigating deputy sheriff found a bloody pipe in the bed of Landwer’s truck.  Harroun testified that he beat Ronald Volk with his fists and feet, and that he drove from the scene in Landwer’s truck.  He said that he alone beat Ronald Volk, that Robb did not assist him, and that he did not use a weapon.  Robb denied that he ever assaulted Ronald Volk.

Two women who attended the party testified.  One said that she saw Robb and others with poles but did not see anyone strike Ronald Volk.  The other woman said she saw people kicking and punching Ronald Volk but did not see any weapon in Robb’s hands.

The state charged Robb with two counts of aiding and abetting assault in the second degree.  Count I required proof of an assault with a dangerous weapon.  Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (1998).  Count II required proof of an assault with a dangerous weapon and the infliction of substantial bodily harm.  Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 2 (1998).  An “assault” includes the intentional infliction of bodily harm on another.  Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10(2) (1998).  A “dangerous weapon” is any device capable of producing death or great bodily harm.  Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (1998).  “Great bodily harm” includes “serious bodily harm.”  Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 8 (1998).  “Substantial bodily harm” includes the fracture of a bodily member.  Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a (1998).  A person who intentionally aids another in the commission of a crime is liable for the crime committed by the other.  Minn. Stat. § 609.05 (1998).

A jury found Robb guilty of both charges.  On appeal, Robb contends that the evidence creates “grave doubt” about his guilt and that he was denied a unanimous verdict.  In his pro se brief, Robb emphasizes the alleged deficiencies in the case and the evidence.


1.         Sufficiency of the Evidence

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.  State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).  The reviewing court must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.  State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).  The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that appellant was guilty of the charged offense.  State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn. 1988).  Inconsistencies in a state’s case do not require reversal if the testimony taken as a whole is consistent and credible.  State v. Folkers, 562 N.W.2d 5, 9 (Minn. App. 1997), aff’d 581 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 1998).

Robb contends that not only are there inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole, but there are also inconsistencies in the testimony of the state’s own witnesses.  Further, he notes that, because there is evidence that some of the witnesses were drunk at the time of the incident, the reliability of those witnesses is doubtful.

Robb’s contentions raise credibility issues.  “Deciding the credibility of witnesses is generally the exclusive province of the jury.”  State v. Doppler, 590 N.W.2d 627, 635 (Minn. 1999) (citations omitted).  As a reviewing court, we do not decide issues of credibility but rather we must determine whether the evidence, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict.  See State v. Jones, 347 N.W.2d 796, 800-801 (Minn. 1984) (witness credibility determinations lie within the province of the jury); State v. Ring, 554 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn. App. 1996) (evidence is sufficient if the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences drawn therefrom allow the fact-finder to reasonably find that defendant committed the crime), review denied (Minn. Jan. 21, 1997).

Ronald Volk, his brother, and his cousin testified that they saw Robb participating with others in Ronald Volk’s beating.  The Volks also testified that they saw Harroun use a bat or metal pole to strike Ronald Volk.  The testimony of these witnesses is consistent as to the identity of Robb, the fact of the beating, and the use of a weapon by one or more of the assailants.  If the jury believed this testimony, as it obviously did, there was sufficient evidence to support the determination that Robb assisted or participated with others in inflicting substantial bodily harm on Ronald Volk by using a metal object in such a manner as to be a dangerous weapon.

2.         Unanimous Verdict

            Robb argues that the testimony was so inconsistent that the jury could not have reached a unanimous verdict as to whom he aided and what weapon was used.

            Contrary to Robb’s assertion, there was consistent evidence at trial from which the jury could unanimously conclude that Robb aided Harroun and that Harroun used a metal object of some sort in a manner that could result in serious harm to Ronald Volk.  Furthermore, unanimity is not required as to the specific ways a crime was committed.  State v. Begbie, 415 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Jan. 20, 1988).  It thus is not essential that the jury unanimously agree whether the instrumentality constituting the dangerous weapon was a bat, a pipe, a pole, or a golf club.  Any of those devices, when used as in this case, would constitute a dangerous weapon.