State Ex Rel. D.B.

T19 First, I write separately to correct the lead opinion's misleading characterization of *826the evidence and argument presented at trial. Second, I write to respond to the lead opinion's erroneous statements regarding the level of notice that the prosecution must provide at trial regarding the theory of guilt it is pursuing. Third, I dissent from the lead opinion's reasoning that "D.B. had several opportunities to challenge the application of accomplice liability," see supra 19, and the lead opinion's conclusion that under the circumstances an objection was required to permit appellate review.

I…