921 N.W.2d 763
Minn.2019Background
- Bowen entered a St. Paul liquor store, created a disturbance, returned within an hour, grabbed a bottle of brandy from behind the counter, struck a manager, and threatened violence while leaving.
- He was charged with simple robbery and threats of violence; jury acquitted on threats, convicted of simple robbery.
- Bowen argued the robbery statute requires the stolen item be “personal property” belonging to a person, not a business, and that the brandy belonged to the store.
- The State argued “personal property” is a technical term meaning all property that is not real property, which includes store inventory.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to resolve the statutory-interpretation question.
Issues
| Issue | Bowen's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "personal property" in Minn. Stat. § 609.24 includes business property (e.g., store inventory) | "Personal property" means property belonging to a person and thus excludes business-owned property | "Personal property" is a technical term meaning any property that is not real property, regardless of ownership | The term is a technical legal term meaning all property other than real property; Bowen's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schachtel, 157 Minn. 272, 196 N.W. 674 (1923) (applied robbery statute to store property; held ownership by someone other than the victim is immaterial)
- State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 2013) (discussed when to ascribe specialized meaning to statutory words; ambiguity analysis)
- State v. Schouweiler, 887 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 2016) (stated rule that technical words and phrases are construed according to their specialized meaning)