State v. Thonesavanh
Minnesota Supreme Court
904 N.W.2d 432 (2017)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Early one cold morning, as J.V. was dressing for work and warming his car’s engine by letting the car idle in the driveway, a suspicious-looking visitor knocked on J.V.’s front door. J.V. reported the man’s presence to the police. When police officers arrived, they found the visitor sitting in J.V.’s car. The officers arrested the visitor, who was later identified as Somsalao Thonesavanh (defendant). The State of Minnesota (plaintiff) prosecuted Thonesavanh for violating a statute making it illegal for anyone to “take or drive” another person’s motor vehicle without that person’s consent. The trial court dismissed the charge. Relying on the common-law crime of larceny’s element of asportation, the court reasoned Thonesavanh could not have taken J.V’s car if the car never left J.V.’s driveway. The intermediate appellate court affirmed, holding that the meaning of “take or drive” was ambiguous and that the rule of lenity required the statute to be interpreted in favor of Thonesavanh. The state appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stras, J.)
Concurrence (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
