Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether the term "personal property" in Minnesota's simple robbery statute includes property owned by a business. The court held that the phrase has the technical meaning of property other than real property, affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence, and upheld Bowen's robbery conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the phrase "personal property" in Minnesota Statutes section 609.24 includes property belonging to a business.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Bowen's simple-robbery conviction when the stolen bottle belonged to a liquor store.
Holdings
- The phrase "personal property" in Minnesota Statutes section 609.24 is a technical term meaning any property that is not real property, regardless of whether it belongs to an individual or a business.
- The evidence was sufficient to support Bowen's simple-robbery conviction because he took the liquor store's bottle of brandy, which constituted personal property under section 609.24, by using force against a store manager.
Key quotations
“We agree with the State that the phrase "personal property" has acquired a clear and accepted specialized meaning as any property that is not real property, and further hold that this technical definition is the only reasonable interpretation of the phrase in the context of the robbery statute.” (921 N.W.2d at 767)
“In sum, the plain meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 609.24 supports only one reasonable interpretation of the phrase "personal property": property that is not real property.” (921 N.W.2d at 768)
Factual background
Bowen entered a Saint Paul liquor store, returned less than an hour after being asked to leave, knocked liquor bottles from shelves, and took a bottle of brandy. He punched a store manager in the face while leaving with the bottle and threatened to return and shoot the employees. The bottle belonged to the liquor store rather than to an individual person.
Procedural history
The jury acquitted Bowen of threats of violence but convicted him of simple robbery. The district court imposed a 38-month sentence, stayed execution, and placed him on probation for five years. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, and the supreme court granted review to decide whether business property qualifies as "personal property" under Minnesota's robbery statute.