Theft of Motor Vehicle
The question presented in this case was whether an individual may commit motor-vehicle theft without moving the vehicle. The District Court dismissed the motor-vehicle-theft charge against respondent for lack of probable cause, concluding that the word “takes” in Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17), required respondent to move the vehicle, something that indisputably did not occur in this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that (1) the word “takes” in the motor-vehicle-theft statute requires only adverse possession of a vehicle; and (2) the rule of lenity applies only when grievous ambiguity exists after the other canons of construction have failed to resolve the ambiguity in a criminal statute. Reversed and remanded.
A15-1716 State v. Thonesavanh (Court of Appeals)
Mitchell J. Ask was conditionally reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, subject to his successful completion of the professional responsibility component of the bar exam, and was placed on probation for 2 years.
A17-0969 In re Ask