## Facts

- J.V. started his car and left it running in his driveway before leaving for work.
- J.V. saw an unfamiliar person, later identified as Somsalao Thonesavanh, knocking on his front door and called 911.
- A responding officer found Thonesavanh inside J.V.’s vehicle with the doors locked and the rear lights illuminated.
- The officer convinced Thonesavanh to unlock the doors, exit the vehicle, and arrested him.
- The vehicle never moved from the driveway.

## Issues

1. Whether “takes” in Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) requires movement (common-law asportation) of the vehicle.
2. Whether a person can commit motor-vehicle theft by “taking” a vehicle without driving or moving it.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the motor-vehicle-theft charge.
- The court held that a person may “take” a motor vehicle without moving it.
- The court concluded the statute’s text, read in context, does not import a common-law asportation requirement.
- Because the statute was not ambiguous after applying interpretive tools, the rule of lenity did not apply.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory terms are interpreted by their ordinary meaning in context; common-law elements are not added unless the statute indicates incorporation.
- In the phrase “takes or drives,” the disjunctive “or” means either act can independently satisfy the statute.
- Statutory construction should avoid rendering words superfluous; reading “takes” to require movement would largely duplicate “drives.”
- The existence of multiple dictionary definitions does not, by itself, establish ambiguity.
- The rule of lenity applies only when ambiguity remains after applying standard interpretive methods.

## Conclusion

The court held that motor-vehicle theft under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) can be proved by showing unauthorized dominion or control over a vehicle, even if the vehicle is not moved, and it reinstated the charge dismissed for lack of probable cause.


State v. Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 2017)