State v. Gratton, 938 N.W.2d 902

December 24, 2018 domestic incident: State charged Nicholas Gratton with several counts including class C felony theft of a 2017 Yukon titled solely to his wife, Brandi.
Deputy Hill testified Brandi told him she was the sole driver, did not authorize Nicholas to use the vehicle, and would report it stolen if taken; Brandi did not testify at the preliminary hearing.
Gratton testified he and Brandi were still married at the time, that he lived at the marital home (not the condo), routinely used the vehicle to transport children, and believed he had access to the keys and vehicles.
At the preliminary hearing the district court dismissed the theft count for lack of probable cause, reasoning marital ownership/access meant Gratton could not have the requisite intent to deprive.
The State appealed, arguing the district court improperly weighed conflicting evidence and ignored that property in which another has an interest may still be the "property of another" for theft purposes.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the State met the minimal probable-cause showing at a preliminary hearing and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause existed to charge Gratton with theft of property	State: Deputy Hill’s testimony that Brandi owned the vehicle and did not authorize its use established probable cause	Gratton: Marital ownership and routine access meant he had a marital interest and could not have intended to permanently deprive Brandi	Court: Reversed — sufficient probable cause existed; court erred by weighing conflicting evidence against prosecution at preliminary hearing
Whether a marital/property interest in the vehicle precludes a theft charge	State: Even if Gratton had a marital interest, Brandi also had an interest he was not privileged to infringe	Gratton: Taking a marital vehicle you routinely use cannot be theft because it is "your own property"	Court: A defendant’s claimed ownership or access does not bar prosecution; another’s interest can make it "property of another" for theft purposes
Proper role of the district court at a preliminary hearing when testimony conflicts	State: Court should draw inferences favorable to prosecution and accept hearsay; minimal burden applies	Gratton: Court found evidence established routine access and no probable cause	Court: District court improperly resolved factual conflict against the State; credibility may be judged only when testimony is implausible or incredible

State v. Conrad, 892 N.W.2d 200 (N.D. 2017) (a joint account holder or co-owner may be charged with theft; defendant’s ownership claim raises factual issues for trial)
State v. Blunt, 751 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2008) (preliminary hearing requires minimal probable-cause showing; judge may only reject testimony if implausible or incredible)
State v. Turbeville, 895 N.W.2d 758 (N.D. 2017) (probable cause at preliminary hearing can rest on hearsay and need not resolve guilt)
State v. Cox, 325 N.W.2d 181 (N.D. 1982) (legal title does not prevent property from being the property of another)
State v. Gwyther, 589 N.W.2d 575 (N.D. 1999) (order dismissing a complaint is equivalent to quashing an indictment and is appealable)