fair trial may be seriously prejudiced if such pleas are mentioned at trial. [Rogers, 939 F.2d at 594]. The facts and circumstances of how a plea was used at trial must be carefully scrutinized by the appellate court. Id. “It is essential to consider such factors as whether the court gave the jury a limiting instruction, ‘whether there was a proper purpose in introducing the fact of the guilty plea, whether the plea was improperly emphasized or used as substantive evidence of guilt, and whether the introduction of the plea was invited by the defense counsel.’ ” Id. Jones, 145 F.3d at 964 (applying these factors to hold that the failure of the trial court to give a cautionary instruction about co-defendants’ pleas was not plain error); Boykin v. Leapley, 28 F.3d 788, 790 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Even if the evidence was erroneously
holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting recognizing aiding and abetting conversion recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion holding in a habeas action that the state properly made a codefendants conviction part of its case where it had charged the defendant with aiding and abetting the same offense and the defendant had made the codefendants guilt part of his own case by arguing that only the codefendant had committed the offenses he was charged with aiding and abetting holding there was no error in giving an instruction on aiding and abetting when defendant was not charged with aiding and abetting because ajiders and abettors  are chargeable directly as principals