OPINION
PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice.
A Ramsey County jury found Larry La-rue Clark guilty of first-degree premeditated murder while aiding and abetting or being aided and abetted by another in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(1) and 609.05, subd. 1 (2006) for the 1970 shooting death of Saint Paul Police Officer James Sackett. The district court convicted Clark for this crime and sentenced him to life in prison. In this direct appeal Clark [245]*245raises five issues: (1) whether an assistant county attorney is authorized by law to frame an indictment before a grand jury; (2) whether the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that certain witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts; (4) whether the court erred when it instructed the jury that the State was not required to prove that Reed was Clark’s conspirator or accomplice; and (5) whether it was error for the court to have admitted evidence of Clark’s 1971 bank robbery conviction. We conclude that: (1) an assistant county attorney may attend a grand jury for purposes of framing the indictment and examining witnesses; (2) that the court’s failure to give sua sponte an accomplice instruction was plain error requiring remand for a new trial; (3) the evidence may be sufficient to support the conviction if the accomplice’s instruction is corroborated; (4) the jury instructions are not required to match the indictment; and (5) the evidence of other crimes is relevant and not overly prejudicial. Therefore, we reverse Clark’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
In 1969, appellant, Larry Larue Clark, and his friend, Ronald Reed, were teenagers living in the Selby-Dale neighborhood of Saint Paul, Minnesota. Clark and Reed frequented the Inner City Youth League, along with other young people from the neighborhood. Reed emerged as the leader of a group of these young people. According to Joseph Garrett, the group’s self-described “minister of information,” the group used the name United Black Front. At their meetings, the group discussed black-empowerment and self-protection from the police. At this time, the tension between the police and these young people was high. In the months preceding the murder of Saint Paul police officer James Sackett, at least two of the neighborhood’s young men had been shot by the police. These shootings further increased the tension between members of the United Black Front and the police. As a result, the rhetoric at the United Black Front’s meetings became more inflammatory. At Clark’s trial there was testimony that Reed and others in the group wanted authority from the Black Panther Party to organize a chapter in Saint Paul and that members of the group thought that if they got national attention by killing a police officer it would increase their chances of success. Witness testimony indicated that Reed was a strong advocate for killing a police officer and that Clark agreed with Reed. Several of the group’s members carried guns, and Reed and Clark were seen together with a bolt-action rifle on a number of occasions.
Just after midnight on Friday, May 22, 1970, the Saint Paul police received an emergency telephone call requesting assistance for a woman in labor at 859 Hague Avenue in the Selby-Dale neighborhood. Officer Sackett and his partner, Officer Glen Kothe, responded to the call, parked their police car in front of 859 Hague, went to the front door, and knocked. When no one in the house came to the door, Kothe walked to the back door and knocked. Hearing a dog bark inside, Kothe started to warn Sackett about the dog, and, as he did so, he saw a bright flash, heard a loud bang, and heard a scream. Running to the front of the house, Kothe found Sackett lying on the ground, bleeding. Kothe realized that Sackett had been shot and radioed for assistance. At some point, a crowd, including Reed and other members of the United Black Front, gathered at the scene. Clark was not identified as having been present in the crowd. Sackett later died as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest.
In the ensuing investigation, the police determined that no one at the 859 Hague [246]*246address had placed the emergency call or was involved in the shooting. They also concluded that the shot that killed Officer Sackett came from a southwesterly direction. A search of the surrounding area, however, produced no evidence of the shooting. Although no weapon or shell casing was found in the area, the police determined that the shot that killed Sack-ett probably came from a single-shot, bolt-action rifle. The police also determined that the emergency call that preceded the shooting was made from a telephone booth one block away at the corner of Selby Avenue and Victoria Street. No fingerprints or other useable evidence were found on or in the booth. At the time of the shooting, Clark lived at 882 Hague, which was approximately 102 yards west of 859 Hague on the south side of the street. The house at 859 Hague is located on the north side of the street.
Through voice-print analysis, the police were eventually able to identify Constance Trimble as the person who made the May 22nd telephone call. Trimble was Reed’s girlfriend and the mother of his child. Trimble was arrested in October 1970 and, after a 1972 jury trial, she was acquitted of Sackett’s murder. At her trial, Trimble testified that she had been told the telephone call was being made as a ruse to set up Gerald Starling for a drug bust in retaliation for Starling having allegedly threatened Trimble’s family. Trimble refused, both during and after her trial, to identify the person who asked her to make the call. As a result, she was held in contempt of court and remained in jail for a period of time after her acquittal.
Further investigation revealed that just after midnight two nights before the shooting, Saint Paul police went to 867 Hague as a result of a similar medical emergency call. On that occasion, officers arriving at the 867 Hague address parked at the rear of the house, and, when there was no response to the officers’ knocking, the call was written off as unfounded.
In October 1970, Reed and Clark, along with Horace Myles, were involved in an attempted armed bank robbery in Omaha, Nebraska. An off-duty police officer, working as a security guard at the bank, was shot by Myles when the officer tried to thwart the robbery. Reed and Clark also fired weapons during the robbery attempt. Clark was arrested for the attempted robbery 10 days later. Reed was arrested roughly two weeks after Clark at an acquaintance’s apartment in Minneapolis. The police found Reed lying on a bed, with a handgun under the bed within his reach. In Reed’s pants pocket the police found a note suggesting that Reed was planning to hijack an airplane and a to-do list for the hijacking. Reed hoped to use the hijacking as a means to gain the release of Trimble, Clark, and Gary Hogan, a friend of Reed’s who was in jail on unrelated charges. The note demanded publicity for the Black Panther Party and $50,000 in gold. A search of the apartment produced a handgun, a flare, a sawed-off shotgun, and a duffel bag holding walkie-talkies. In 1971, Reed and Clark were convicted of the attempted bank robbery in Omaha. State v. Reed, 188 Neb. 815, 199 N.W.2d 707 (1972); State v. Clark, 189 Neb. 109, 201 N.W.2d 205 (1972). But neither Reed, Clark, nor anyone else was arrested in connection with Sackett’s murder, and the investigation stalled.
In 1994, a television reporter interviewed Trimble about Officer Sackett’s murder. Trimble refused to disclose who had asked her to make the false emergency telephone call. In 1995, the Saint Paul police contacted Trimble, at which time she admitted that Reed was with her when she made the call, but she refused to pro[247]*247vide any further information. In 2004, at her request, Trimble met with the police and disclosed for the first time that Reed had asked her to make the call and had given her a script to read. She told the police that Reed drove the two of them, along with their baby, to the telephone booth. She also stated that after the call was made, Reed drove them directly from the booth to Clark’s house to get some marijuana.
Following this subsequent investigation, a grand jury was convened to determine whether there was probable cause to indict Reed and Clark. Two witnesses who ultimately testified at Clark’s trial also testified before the grand jury. In 2005, Reed and Clark were indicted for aiding and abetting each other (count 1) and for conspiring with each other (count 2) to kill Officer Sackett. A warrant upon indictment was issued for Clark’s arrest, and Clark was taken into custody two days after the indictment. As noted earlier, Reed was tried first and was found guilty on both counts. We affirmed Reed’s conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Reed, 737 N.W.2d 572, 590 (Minn.2007).
Clark went to trial on April 10, 2006. At Clark’s trial, Donald Walker testified that he frequented the Inner City Youth League in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He also attended “so-called Black Panther Party meetings” at a neighborhood church, at which Reed and Clark would make intense, motivational statements of hatred toward white people, the government, and the police. Walker did not recall any times when the discussions turned to plans of violence or to killing police officers, but he did testify that he “transported” a single-shot, bolt-action rifle for Reed and Clark on at least two occasions when he gave them a ride. At times, Walker’s trial testimony conflicted with his grand jury testimony regarding the number of “Black Panther Party meetings” he attended and the number of times he gave Reed and Clark a ride when they were carrying a rifle.
Anthony Foster also testified that he attended the United Black Front meetings. Foster stated that at the meetings Reed talked about killing a police officer to attract national attention in order to get permission to start a Black Panther chapter in Saint Paul. He further testified that Reed, Arthur Harper, and Arling Reese came to his apartment a few days after Officer Sackett was shot and that Reed would not respond to his attempts to discuss the shooting. The defense asserted that Foster’s testimony may not have been entirely accurate, as both Reese’s trial testimony and records introduced at trial indicate that Reese was incarcerated in Moorhead, Minnesota, from April through August 1970, and, therefore, Reese could not have been present at Foster’s apartment a few days after the shooting.
Trimble’s account of events differed in some respects from her statements to investigators, her testimony at her trial, her testimony to the grand jury, and her testimony at Reed’s and Clark’s trials. At Clark’s trial, she testified that Reed drove her directly to Clark’s house after she placed the false emergency telephone call, that Clark was waiting outside the back door of his house when they arrived, and that she and Reed remained there for five to seven minutes before driving home. At her own trial, Trimble testified that she went to buy cigarettes after making the call and that Reed was home asleep when she returned. At both Reed’s and Clark’s trials, she testified that neither Reed nor Clark left Clark’s house while she was there. During her grand jury testimony, however, Trimble testified as follows:
[248]*248Q: [A]fter you met up with Larry Clark who was standing in the back of his house, where did you go?
A: I went into the house ... I went into the restroom.
[[Image here]]
Q: Could [Clark and Reed] have left?
A: They could have, you know. Now that I think about it, they could have, you know.
Trimble did not provide any explanation for the inconsistencies in her statements.
Joseph Garrett, the “minister of information” for the United Black Front, also testified at Clark’s trial. Garrett testified that Reed and others at the United Black Front meetings advocated protecting themselves from the police “by any means necessary.” Garrett further testified that he, together with Clark and others, agreed with that proposition. According to Garrett, members of the United Black Front “tended to be armed.” He testified that he had access to several bolt-action, 30-caliber rifles that he had stolen and later sold, but, as far as he knows, none of the stolen rifles went to anyone else in the group. Garrett testified that Reed had approached him a few weeks before Sack-ett’s murder about being involved in “bringing] down the first pig.” Garrett understood this to mean killing a police officer. He testified that Reed knew of Garrett’s combat experience in Vietnam and expert marksmanship. He also testified that he did not answer Reed at the time and never spoke with Reed about it after that.
Garrett also testified that a week before the Sackett shooting he felt he was being harassed by the police during a traffic stop and told the officers involved to “watch the rooftops.” There was testimony from other witnesses that the officers took the comment to mean “beware of snipers.” At least two police officers saw Garrett in the crowd that gathered after the shooting. The officers placed him in a squad car and asked about his “watch the rooftops” remark. Garrett said the rooftop comment was made in anger and that he knew nothing about the shooting. Garrett testified, however, that he also told the police about out-of-state Black Panther sympathizers in an effort to “throw [the police] off track.” According to Garrett, after he got out of the squad car, the “sergeant in arms” of the United Black Front, Kelly Day, who also was in the crowd, told Garrett to keep his mouth closed.
Arthur Harper testified that he, Day, Reed, and Clark often socialized at Day’s apartment, located at 844 Dayton Avenue. The apartment was less than two blocks from where Officer Sackett was shot. According to Harper, Reed often made statements, with which Clark agreed, that the police were the oppressors and needed to be taught a lesson. Harper further testified that he was with Reese when he saw Reed and Clark leave Day’s apartment at about 11:30 p.m. the night of Sackett’s murder and that, at the time, Reed appeared to be carrying a bolt-action rifle. As noted earlier, it appears Reese was in jail at that time. Harper also testified that he heard a gunshot 15 to 20 minutes later and that a few minutes later he walked south on Selby, in the direction the police cars were heading. Harper further testified that he joined Day, who was standing in front of the Inner City Youth League, and they were joined by Reed sometime later.
The State also presented evidence regarding bombings that occurred around the time of Officer Sackett’s shooting. Sergeant Russell Bovee testified that Gary Hogan was convicted for the August 1970 bombing of Dayton’s department store in downtown Saint Paul. According to Bo-vee, the bombing involved two bombs: the [249]*249first, smaller one to draw a police response and the second, bigger one to kill the responding police officers. Sergeant Paul Paulos testified that on September 12, 1970, he searched a garage rented by Day. In the garage, Paulos found a car containing 12 cases of dynamite.
Neither Clark nor Reed testified at Clark’s trial. Clark called 21 witnesses to testify for the defense. In large part, the testimony elicited from the defense’s witnesses included statements regarding (1) the monetary and penal incentives given to some of the State’s witnesses; (2) the lack of evidence linking Clark to the crime scene; (3) the criminal activities of other members of the United Black Front and of people involved in the Inner City Youth League; (4) alternative perpetrators; (5) bullet trajectories; and (6) the social history of the era and the Black Panther Party.
At trial, the district court, over the defense’s objection, allowed evidence of Clark’s and Reed’s 1971 bank robbery convictions to prove intent and motive to shoot a police officer. The court gave a limiting instruction to the jury about the use of this other crimes evidence both immediately before the jury heard the testimony about the convictions and at the end of Clark’s trial. Clark also objected to the court’s jury instruction on conspiracy. Clark argued that the jury should be instructed that the State must prove he conspired with Reed to shoot a police officer because that was how the indictment read, rather than having to prove simply that he conspired with an unknown person to shoot an officer.
The jury found Clark guilty on both counts of the indictment. The district court then convicted him of aiding and abetting and sentenced him to life in prison. Clark argues on this direct appeal that (1) an assistant county attorney is not authorized by law to frame an indictment before the grand jury; (2) the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that certain witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts; (4) the court erred when it instructed the jury that the State was not required to prove that Reed was Clark’s conspirator or accomplice; and (5) it was error for the court to have admitted evidence of Clark’s 1971 bank robbery conviction.
I.
We first address Clark’s argument that his conviction should be reversed and the indictment should be dismissed under Minn.Stat. § 628.63 (2006). Clark argues that the statute provides that only an elected county attorney may appear before a grand jury and frame the indictment. According to Clark, because the elected Ramsey County Attorney did not appear and frame the indictment in his case, the assistant county attorneys who attended the grand jury meeting and framed the indictment in the County Attorney’s absence were not authorized to do so.
Whether Minnesota law permits an assistant county attorney to attend the grand jury meeting and frame the indictment requires us to construe a number of statutes, which we do de novo. Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester, 690 N.W.2d 721, 732 (Minn.2005). The object of statutory interpretation is to determine and effectuate legislative intent. State v. Zeimet, 696 N.W.2d 791, 793 (Minn.2005). We construe statutes to avoid absurd results. Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 278 (Minn.2000). “Statutes relating to the same subject are presumed to be imbued with the same spirit and to have been passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all existing legislation on the subject and regarded by the lawmakers as being parts of a connected whole.” Kal[250]*250juste v. Hennepin County Sanatorium Comm’n, 240 Minn. 407, 414, 61 N.W.2d 757, 762 (1953). We also construe statutes as a whole and “must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations.” Am. Family Ins. Group, 616 N.W.2d. at 277.
Minnesota Statute § 628.63 requires that “the county attorney shall attend [the grand jury] for the purpose of framing indictments or examining witnesses....” “ ‘Shall’ is mandatory.” Minn.Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (2006). Similarly, Minnesota Statute § 388.051 (2006) provides: “The county attorney shall ... attend before the grand jury, give them legal advice, and examine witnesses in their presence.” Minnesota Statute § 388.10 (2006), however, authorizes a county attorney to appoint “one or more attorneys for assistance in the performance of [his or her] duties” who “shall have the same duties and be subject to the same liabilities as the county attorney.”
Minnesota Statute § 628.63 was first enacted by the territorial legislature. Knowing that section 628.63 provided for the county attorney’s presence before the grand jury for the purposes of framing the indictment and examining witnesses, the state legislature subsequently enacted Minn.Stat. § 388.051 in 1860, mandating that the county attorney shall “attend before the Grand Jury of such county upon the special request of said jury, and examine witnesses in their presence; he shall give them advice in any legal matter before them.... ” Minnesota Statute § 388.10 was enacted in 1921. We presume the legislature knew the duties prescribed to the “county attorney” in sections 628.63 and 388.051 when it later enacted Minn.Stat. § 388.10 authorizing the appointment of assistant county attorneys to perform the county attorney’s duties. See Kaljuste, 240 Minn. at 414, 61 N.W.2d at 762. Therefore, reading all three statutes as parts of a connected whole, we conclude that the legislature intended to permit assistant county attorneys to perform certain duties of the county attorneys, including attending grand jury meetings for the purposes of framing indictments and examining witnesses.
To support his arguments, Clark relies on State v. Frink, 296 Minn. 57, 206 N.W.2d 664 (1973), but we conclude that this reliance is misplaced. In Fñnk, we analyzed Minn.Stat. § 388.10 as applied to the Minnesota Privacy of Communications Act, Minn.Stat. § 626A.05, subd. 1 (2006), which was enacted after section 388.10. In part, our holding was based on our conclusion that the more specific statute, section 626A.05, prevailed over the more general section 388.10. We held that only the county attorney — -and not an assistant county attorney — may apply for a wiretap warrant under Minn.Stat. § 626A.05, subd. 1. See Frink, 296 Minn, at 66, 206 N.W.2d at 669. Section 626A.05, subd. 1, provides, in relevant part, “The attorney general or a county attorney of any county may make application as provided in section 626A.06, to a judge of the district court, of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court for a warrant-” Minn.Stat. § 626A.05, subd. 1. The narrow issue we addressed in Fñnk is distinguishable from the issue presented here. The case before us, unlike Fñnk, involves three statutes addressing the same general topic-the duties of county attorneys. Of the three statutes, Minn.Stat. § 388.10, authorizing the county attorney to appoint assistant county attorneys to perform the county attorney’s duties, was the last to be enacted. Another significant distinction between this case and Fñnk is that the statute at issue in Fñnk, the Minnesota Privacy of Communications Act, a criminal statute, was en[251]*251acted pursuant to the provisions of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1958. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 (2006). This federal legislation limited the authority to apply for wiretap warrants to “principal prosecuting attorney[s].” Id. § 2516. Frink involved an assistant county attorney who applied for a wiretap warrant without the knowledge or consent of the county attorney. Frink, 296 Minn. at 66, 206 N.W.2d at 669. Reading the Minnesota statute in light of the federal legislation led us to the conclusion that to allow, on the facts presented, an assistant county attorney to apply for a wiretap warrant would put the Minnesota statute in conflict with federal law. That is not the situation presented here. Thus, we conclude that our decision in Frink does not support Clark’s argument that assistant county attorneys are not authorized to attend grand jury meetings for the purpose of framing an indictment, giving legal advice, and examining witnesses.
For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the fact that an assistant county attorney attended the grand jury meeting and framed the indictment against Clark does not render Clark’s indictment and conviction legally deficient such that the indictment must be dismissed and the conviction overturned.
II.
Clark next claims that his conviction should be reversed and that he should receive a new trial because Trimble was an accomplice whose testimony at trial was not corroborated. At his trial, Clark did not request an accomplice instruction nor did he object to the admission of Trimble’s testimony on those grounds.
Under Minnesota law, a criminal conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Minn.Stat. § 684.04 (2006) (“A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.”). This statutory rule reflects an inherent distrust of testimony from accomplices, who “may testify against another in the hope of or upon a promise of immunity or clemency or to satisfy other self-serving or malicious motives.” State v. Shoop, 441 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Minn.1989); accord State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5, 144 N.W.2d 783, 786 (1966). The statute contemplates that the issue of whether an accomplice’s testimony has been sufficiently corroborated is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. See Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479. Accordingly, we have held that “[a]s a rule, trial courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.” State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d 681, 689 (Minn.2002); accord Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479. A witness is considered an accomplice if “[she] could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” State v. Lee, 688 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Minn.2004).
Failure to Give Accomplice Instruction
We first consider whether the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony. Because Clark failed to either ask for or object to the absence of such an instruction, our review of this issue is governed by the plain error analysis. See State v. Reed, 737 N.W.2d 572, 584 (Minn.2007). Therefore, we must determine whether the court committed an error, whether the error was plain, and whether the error affected [252]*252Clark’s substantial rights. Id. at 583. If each of these requirements is satisfied, we must then consider whether reversal of Clark’s conviction is necessary to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial process. Id.
In 1972, a jury acquitted Trimble of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Officer Sackett. Thus, Trimble could not, consistent with the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, again be indicted and tried for that crime. But as we recognized in State v. Reed, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. 737 N.W.2d at 583. Accordingly, we recognized that Trimble “could theoretically be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, the same crime of which Reed has been convicted,” and that she therefore “could reasonably be considered an accomplice.” Id. Like Reed, Clark was also convicted of conspiracy to murder Officer Sackett. Thus, as in Reed, a jury could reasonably conclude that Trimble is an accomplice in this case.
Under the plain error analysis, we generally consider an error to be “plain” if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn.2006). As noted above, we have unambiguously held that “trial courts have a duty to instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider any witness against the defendant to be an accomplice.” Strommen, 648 N.W.2d at 689. Because it was reasonable for a jury to consider Trimble to be an accomplice, we conclude that the district court committed an error that was plain by failing to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony.
The third prong of the plain error analysis requires us to consider whether an error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. “[A]n error affects substantial rights when there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that the absence of the error would have had a ‘significant effect’ on the jury’s verdict.” Reed, 737 N.W.2d at 585 (citation omitted). In Reed, we concluded that the failure to give the accomplice instruction did not affect Reed’s substantial rights because “the weight of [the non-accomplice witnesses’] collective testimony was sufficient to corroborate [Trimble’s] testimony.” Id. But the State’s evidence at Reed’s trial was stronger than the State’s evidence against Clark. Notably, at Reed’s trial, Garrett, a trained sharpshooter, testified that Reed tried to recruit him for help in “bringing down the first pig”; Trimble testified that she and Reed made the false emergency telephone call; Foster testified that Reed’s behavior shortly after the shooting was dejected and abnormal; and John Griffin testified that, in the early 1980s, Reed told him that “when [Reed] put a bead on that officer * * * he felt powerful,” but “when he seen the bullet hitting him, he said he never felt more f[* * *]ed up in his life.”1 Id. at 578-79, 585 (third alteration added). Without this evidence, the State’s case against Clark was necessarily more dependent on Trim-ble’s testimony; at the same time, the evidence available to corroborate her testimony was weaker. Therefore, we conclude that the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony affected Clark’s substantial rights. We also conclude that reversal of Clark’s conviction [253]*253is necessary in this case to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial process. Accordingly, we hold that the court committed plain error when it failed to give the accomplice jury instruction and that Clark’s convictions must therefore be reversed on this basis.
Corroboration
The foregoing conclusion does not end our inquiry. The dissent links two of Clark’s arguments — that Trimble’s testimony is not corroborated and that the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain his convictions — and concludes that no reasonable jury could have found that Trimble’s testimony was corroborated. Viewing the remaining evidence as being insufficient to sustain Clark’s conviction, the dissent then concludes that we must reverse outright.2 Therefore, we proceed to determine whether a reasonable jury could conclude that Trimble’s testimony was corroborated.
Because the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving dishonesty by accomplice witnesses, see Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479, we have long held that evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony,” Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5, 144 N.W.2d at 786; accord State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Minn.1988). This burden is met when the defendant is linked to the alleged crime by corroborating evidence that “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the truth of [the accomplice’s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313, 63 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1954); accord Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5, 144 N.W.2d at 786; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398, 127 N.W.2d 534, 538 (1964). The precise “quantum of corroborative evidence needed necessarily depends on the circumstances of each case,” but corroborative evidence does not need to be suffi[254]*254cient to establish a prima facie case of the defendant’s guilt or sustain a conviction. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d at 713; accord State v. Pederson, 614 N.W.2d 724, 732 (Minn.2000); Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5, 144 N.W.2d at 786; Mathiasen, 267 Minn. at 398, 127 N.W.2d at 538; Rasmussen, 241 Minn. at 313, 63 N.W.2d at 3.
In determining whether an accomplice's testimony is corroborated, “[t]he defendant’s entire conduct may be looked to for corroborating circumstances.” Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d at 713. “Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice.” Rasmussen, 241 Minn. at 313, 63 N.W.2d at 3; accord Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d at 713. Relevant facts that may be used to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony and link the defendant to the crime include:
participation in the preparation for the criminal act; opportunity and motive; proximity of the defendant to the place where the crime was committed under unusual circumstances; association with persons involved in the crime in such a way as to suggest joint participation; possession of an instrument or instruments probably used to commit the offense; and unexplained affluence or possession of the fruits of criminal conduct.
Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5, 144 N.W.2d at 786; accord Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d at 713.
During Clark’s trial, the State introduced evidence that Reed and Clark were close friends and were both members of the United Black Front, that Clark was present at meetings where Reed advocated killing a police officer as part of an attempt to bring a Black Panther chapter to Saint Paul, that Clark expressed agreement with these statements, and that both Reed and Clark made statements of hatred toward the government and the police in an “intense” and “pumped up” atmosphere. Additionally, the State introduced evidence that on multiple occasions before the shooting, Reed and Clark had been seen in possession of a single-shot, bolt-action rifle like the one used to kill Officer Sackett. The evidence also showed that Clark’s house was located only 102 feet from the place where Officer Sackett was killed and was in the direction from which the fatal shot was fired. At approximately 11:30 p.m. — one-half hour before the shooting — Reed was seen carrying a rifle and walking with Clark toward Clark’s house. Voice-print analysis established that Trimble placed the emergency call that led to the shooting from a public telephone located approximately one block from the crime scene. Finally, the State introduced evidence of a bank robbery in which both Reed and Clark participated and during which a off-duty police officer was shot.
This evidence points to Clark’s guilt by suggesting that Reed and Clark shared a motive for killing Officer Sackett, placing the two men in proximity to the crime scene under unusual circumstances,3 placing them in possession of a weapon consis[255]*255tent with the one used in the commission of the crime, and indicating an association between them such as to suggest their joint participation in criminal activity. Additionally, the voice-print analysis affirmed the truth of Trimble’s testimony by confirming that she made the false emergency call from the telephone booth located one block from the crime scene.
The dissent’s conclusion that Trimble’s testimony was uncorroborated “as a matter of law” is based on the fact that specific statements during Trimble’s testimony were not corroborated by outside evidence. For example, despite conceding that “the voice print analysis evidence seems to corroborate Trimble’s testimony that she made the false emergency call,” the dissent states that “[the voice-print analysis] does not directly or circumstantially corroborate her claim that Reed asked her to make the call or any of her other testimony.” The dissent also notes in two places that the evidence in this case does not corroborate Trimble’s testimony “that there was no rifle in the car, that she and Reed drove to Clark’s house after she made the phone call, and that Clark was standing outside his back door when they arrived.” But by focusing so narrowly on whether the evidence corroborated specific statements during Trimble’s testimony, we believe that the dissent departs from the principles that have guided our analysis of accomplice-testimony corroboration since we decided Rasmussen, 241 Minn. at 313, 63 N.W.2d at 3, over 50 years ago. The dissent’s narrow focus would also reverse our longstanding rule by requiring the introduction of independent evidence to prove every aspect of the accomplice’s testimony that is probative of the defendant’s guilt.
Finally, we address the dissent’s assertion that we have “retreated on our longstanding requirement that in order for evidence to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony it must have both some tendency to affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and at the same time point to the defendant’s guilt.” We disagree with the dissent’s view of our precedent as requiring that a single piece of corroborating evidence satisfy both corroboration requirements. Rather, we read our precedent as requiring that the evidence as a whole must both affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the defendant’s guilt.4
[256]*256Consistent with the basic rule that corroborating evidence need only be sufficient to restore confidence in the truthfulness of the accomplice’s testimony, we have repeatedly stated that the quantum of corroboration needed varies with the unique circumstances of each case. See Pederson, 614 N.W.2d at 732; Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d at 713; Mathiasen, 267 Minn. at 398, 127 N.W.2d at 538. The circumstances of this case do not suggest that there is a significant danger that Trimble has been induced to offer incriminating testimony against Clark based on self-serving motives. Even though she received immunity from federal prosecution, we noted in Reed that “[Trimble’s] efforts to absolve Reed of complicity in the shooting belie the suggestion that she was a pawn of the state.” Reed, 737 N.W.2d at 585. Similarly, Trim-ble’s testimony during Clark’s trial differed from her grand jury testimony in a way that appears to have benefited Clark.
For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found that the corroborating evidence was sufficient to restore confidence in the truth of Trimble’s testimony.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Clark argues that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder. In Burks v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.” 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). Accordingly, where the evidence at a trial was “legally insufficient” to support a conviction, “the only ‘just’ remedy * * ⅜ is the direction of a judgment of acquittal.” Id. at 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141. Thus, even though we conclude that Clark’s conviction must be reversed based on the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony, we must also address Clark’s sufficiency argument to determine whether the appropriate remedy is to remand for a new trial or a judgment of acquittal.
“When reviewing a claim of evidentiary insufficiency, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn.2005); accord State v. Sanchez-Diaz, 683 N.W.2d 824, 831 (Minn.2004) (“The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assumes that the fact finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”). We will not reverse a conviction if, “giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 319; accord Sanchez-Diaz, 683 [257]*257N.W.2d at 831 (“When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s inquiry is limited to whether the fact finder could have reasonably concluded that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”). We have said that “[cjircumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as any other evidence,” but in order to sustain a conviction, the circumstances proved must be “consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 319; see also State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545-46, 217 N.W. 683, 684 (1928).
The first count for which the jury found Clark guilty is aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder. A person is hable for aiding and abetting a crime if he “intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.” Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 (2006). In order to prove aiding and abetting, the State has to prove that the defendant had knowledge of the crime and “intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that cidme.” State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 682 (Minn.2007).
The jury also found Clark guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder. A person is guilty of conspiracy if he “conspires with another to commit a crime and in furtherance of the conspiracy one or more of the parties does some overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy.” Minn.Stat. § 609.175, subd. 2 (2006). In order to prove conspiracy, the State’s evidence must “objectively indicate[] an agreement” between the defendant and another person to commit a crime. State v. Hatfield, 639 N.W.2d 372, 376 (Minn.2002).
The State’s theory of Officer Sackett’s murder is that on the night of the shooting, Reed and Clark walked to Clark’s house, where they stored the murder weapon. Reed then picked up Trim-ble, drove her to the public telephone booth where she made the false emergency call to lure a police officer to the scene, and then returned to Clark’s house. Either Reed or Clark retrieved the murder weapon, left the house, and shot Sackett. The shooter then returned to the house, and Reed drove Trimble home.
At Clark’s trial, Arthur Harper testified that Reed was seen carrying a rifle and walking with Clark toward Clark’s house approximately one-half hour before Officer Sackett’s murder. Voice-print analysis showed that, shortly before the shooting, Trimble made a false emergency call from a public telephone booth on the corner of Victoria Street and Selby Avenue. According to Trimble’s testimony,5 Reed then drove her to Clark’s house, which was only one block away. When they arrived, Clark was standing outside waiting to meet them. Although Trimble testified that she did not see either Reed or Clark leave the house, her grand jury testimony indicated that she went into the house to use the restroom and that the two men could have left the house during that time. Trimble also testified that she did not see a rifle in the car.
The State’s evidence showed that Officer Sackett was shot with a 30-caliber, bolt-action rifle, that Reed and Clark had been [258]*258seen in possession of a similar weapon on multiple occasions in the months before the murder, that Clark’s house was located approximately 102 yards from the murder scene, which is within the range of a rifle like that used in the murder, and that Clark’s house was located in the general direction from where the fatal shot was fired. Finally, the State’s evidence showed that Reed and Clark were close friends and that they shared a common motive for the shooting — Reed had previously advocated killing a police officer as part of an attempt to bring a Black Panther chapter to Saint Paul, and Clark had openly agreed with those views.
The dissent concludes that Harper’s testimony that he saw Reed carrying a rifle and walking with Clark before the shooting is not sufficient to support a conviction. It reaches this conclusion based on the fact that, because “Reed and Clark had been seen together on a number of occasions with a rifle in their possession without anyone being shot, it is equally possible to infer that Clark did not know of Reed’s plan to shoot a police officer that evening.” The dissent also states that “[t]here is no available evidence placing Clark and Reed together again that night. Nor is there evidence placing Clark at or near the scene of the shooting at the time of or after the shooting.” Therefore, the dissent asserts that “it cannot be said that the fact that .Reed and Clark were seen together with a rifle the night Officer Sackett was shot leads unerringly to the conclusion that an agreement to conspire existed between Reed and Clark.”
The dissent is correct when it asserts that the fact that Reed and Clark were seen together with a rifle in Reed’s possession one-half hour before the shooting would not be sufficient to support either an aiding and abetting or a conspiracy conviction. But we conclude that Trimble’s testimony is sufficient to fill the gaps in the chain of evidence pointing to Clark’s involvement with Reed in a plan to shoot a police officer. Trimble’s testimony places Reed and Clark together in the area where the fatal shot was fired and, if the jury credited her grand jury testimony, this gave the two men an opportunity to commit the crime. Trimble’s testimony also leads to an inference that Reed and Clark had arranged to meet behind Clark’s house after the false emergency call was placed, and that the two men had stored the murder weapon at Clark’s house before the false emergency call or the shooting. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Reed and Clark agreed to murder a police officer and that Clark’s actions were intended to further the commission of that crime. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence presented at Clark’s trial when viewed in a light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
Remedy
Having concluded that the district court committed plain error when it failed to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony, that Clark was substantially prejudiced by the error, and that the evidence is sufficient to corroborate Trimble’s testimony and to support the jury’s verdicts, the appropriate remedy is to remand for a new trial.
III.
Because several of the remaining issues raised by Clark on appeal are likely to recur upon retrial, we address these issues to offer guidance to the district court and in the interest of preserving [259]*259judicial resources. Clark asserts the district court erred when it instructed the jury that the State was not required to prove that Clark aided and abetted or was aided and abetted by or conspired with Reed as set out in the grand jury’s indictment. With respect to aiding and abetting, the indictment read:
On or about the 22nd day of May 1970, in Ramsey County, Minnesota, the defendants, Ronald Lindsey Reed and Larry Larue Clark, aiding and abetting and being aided and abetted by each other, did wrongfully and unlawfully cause the death of James Sackett, with premeditation and with the intent to cause the death of James Sackett or another person.
With respect to the conspiring, the indictment read:
On or about the 22nd day of May 1970, in Ramsey County, Minnesota, the defendants, Ronald Lindsey Reed and Larry Larue Clark, did wrongfully and unlawfully conspire with each other to commit the crime of Murder in the First Degree, and in furtherance of this conspiracy, one of the defendants, did an overt act, namely caused another to make a telephone call designed to summon one or more police officers to a particular location.
With respect to aiding and abetting, the district court instructed the jury on the accomplice charge that the State needed to prove Clark aided and abetted “with another or otherwise procured the commission of a crime by another person, whether or not that person is named in the indictment or event identified.” With respect to the conspiracy charge, the court instructed the jury that the State needed to prove that “the defendant conspired with at least one other person to commit the crime of murder in the first degree.” The court further instructed that, “It makes no difference whether that person is named in the indictment. You do not have to find that the other person charged in the indictment was a member of the conspiracy.” Clark objected only to the instruction related to the accomplice offense but argues that we can remedy the plain error resulting from the instruction given for the conspiracy offense as well.
We addressed this issue in Reed when we considered and rejected Reed’s challenge to the same jury instructions that were given at his trial. See Reed, 737 N.W.2d at 584. Clark argues that the issue is different in his case because he, unlike Reed, put on a defense at trial. According to Clark, part of his defense involved calling 21 witnesses to show that his friendship with Reed was not as close as alleged by the State. Clark claims that the change in jury instructions gave him no chance to respond to the argument that he may have been an accomplice or a co-conspirator with someone other than Reed, in violation of his due process rights. Clark, like Reed, relies on a Rhode Island Supreme Court case, State v. DeSanto, 603 A.2d 744, 746 (R.I.1992), to support his proposition that the joint indictment made the identity of his co-conspirator or accomplice an essential element of the offense. We rejected the Rhode Island case in Reed as neither binding on our court nor persuasive. Reed, 737 N.W.2d at 580.
In Reed, we determined that Reed did not show how the change in jury instruction language prejudiced him and concluded there was no reversible error in the instructions. Id. at 581. As we stated in Reed, “[w]e cannot see how his defense would have changed had the indictment included unnamed co-conspirators from the outset.” Id. The State presented little or no evidence at trial connecting Clark to a co-conspirator or accomplice other than Reed. Clark has not shown how his de[260]*260fense at trial would have changed if he had been on notice from the outset that his conspiracy charge might include unnamed co-conspirators. Accordingly, we fail to see how the jury instructions prejudiced Clark. On the facts before us, we conclude the district court’s jury instructions on aiding and abetting and on conspiracy do not constitute reversible error.
IV.
Finally, Clark argues that it was error for the district court to admit as Spreigl evidence his 1971 conviction for the Omaha bank robbery.6 He claims the conviction is irrelevant because it bears no relationship to the charged offenses. Further, he argues that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice.
The State responds that the district court reserved its decision until the end of the State’s case and then found the conviction admissible for the limited purposes of proving intent and motive. The State also argues that any potential prejudicial effect was minimized by the limited evidence of the robbery actually presented to the jury and by the court’s cautionary instruction that was more restrictive than the standard CRIMJIG 3.16.7 The State also asserts the evidence was “crucial” to its otherwise “largely circumstantial case” that relied primarily on Clark’s intent.
We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn.1998). Generally, evidence is admissible only if it is relevant. Minn. R. Evid. 402. Evidence of a defendant’s other crimes or wrongs usually is inadmissible to prove the defendant’s character. Minn. R. Evid. 403, 404(b). Other-crimes evidence may be admissible for limited purposes: to show motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or common plan or scheme. Minn. R. Evid. 404(b); State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871, 877 (Minn.2006). For such evidence to be admissible (1) the State must provide notice of its intent to use the evidence; (2) the State must clearly indicate what the evidence is being offered to prove; (3) there must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant participated in the other act; (4) the Spreigl evidence must be relevant and material; and (5) the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by the potential prejudice. State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676, 685-86 (Minn.2006). If it is “a close call” whether [261]*261the evidence should be admitted,, the Spreigl evidence should be excluded. Id. at 685.
In Ness, we indicated that the district court “should not simply take the prosecution’s stated purposes for the admission of other-acts evidence at face value.” Id. at 686. The court should “ ‘look to the real purpose for which the evidence is offered,’ and ensure that the purpose is one of the permitted exceptions to the rule’s general exclusion of other-acts evidence.” Id. In this case, the State asserts that the “evidence goes to intent,” arguing that Clark intentionally shot to kill, wound, or maim during the robbery, which evidence was offered to prove that Clark had the specific intent to kill a police officer.8
We do not see how the intent involved in the bank robbery proves intent in killing an officer. The intent to kill a police officer in order to bring a Black Panther Party chapter to Saint Paul is different from the intent involved in returning fire during a bank robbery when the criminal objective is to commit a robbery and facilitate an escape. Admitting the evidence on the basis of intent was improper.
The question of whether the bank robbery conviction was admissible to prove motive also was presented to the district court. Clark disputed any connection between the bank robbery and the United Black Front’s activities to raise money for the Black Panther Party and asserts that no evidence in the record supports the State’s argument. He contends that the court erred in admitting the evidence based on motive.
We conclude that the Spreigl evidence was admissible for the limited purposes of showing absence of mistake or identity as joint actors. In State v. Nelson, we concluded that Spreigl evidence in that case was relevant to show that the defendant and his accomplice “worked together closely to coordinate their criminal activity.” 632 N.W.2d 193, 204 (Minn.2001). We noted the other-crimes evidence was important to the State’s case “because it was not only material but also the most relevant evidence” of the accomplice relationship. Given the circumstantial nature of the evidence linking Clark to Officer Sackett’s murder and the credibility issues raised with respect to the witnesses providing that circumstantial evidence, evidence that Reed and Clark worked together during the bank robbery supports the State’s contention that they worked together in killing Sackett.
Moreover, any concerns we might have had over the potential for prejudice are minimized due to the district court’s cautionary instruction to the jury regarding the permissible use of Spreigl evidence. We presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions. State v. Budreau, 641 N.W.2d 919, 926 (Minn.2002); see also Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S., 200, 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). Thus, the court’s detailed instruction to the jury limited the potential for prejudice and mitigated any possibility that the evidence of Clark’s bank robbery conviction suggested he had a propensity to commit criminal acts. On the admissibility of the Spreigl evidence, we conclude that Clark is not entitled to any relief.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
MAGNUSON, C.J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[262]*262DIETZEN, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.