With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the grand jury. Although appellant did not sign the May 10, 1983, bid for which he was indicted, he knew and approved of Nurre’s submitting it. The record discloses nothing unusual about the lack of appellant’s signature on the bid. Even though appellant did not personally sign the May 10, 1983, bid, his prior ac-quiesence and approval makes him liable in the eyes of the law with the signer, Nurre. Under the law, “person[s] may be held criminally liable as an aider and abettor without actively participating in the overt act constituting the primary offense; moreover, criminal intent may be inferred from * * * conduct before and after the offenses are committed.” State v. Goodridge, 352 N.W.2d 384, 389 (Minn.1984) (emphasis added); State v. Strimling, 265 N.W.2d 423, 429 (Minn.1978) (<HOLDING>). The transcript from the plea hearing

A: holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians
B: holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence
C: holding that a masters findings do not become binding until approved by a judge of the court to which he reports
D: holding corporate officer liable as aider and abettor in filing of false reports even though reports were not authorized or approved of by officers
D.