State v. Rogers, 925 N.W.2d 1

Defendant Deronti Rogers Jr. broke into J.T.'s home while she and her children were away and stole items; a neighbor witnessed the break-in and called police.
Police caught Rogers nearby; he dropped a realistic .177-caliber Daisy BB gun (no orange cap) that officers believed was a firearm.
Rogers was charged with first-degree burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(b) (possession of a dangerous weapon or an article fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon) and second-degree burglary.
The district court convicted Rogers of both counts, finding he possessed the BB gun while inside the house and that the BB gun was fashioned to appear dangerous.
The court of appeals affirmed the first-degree conviction, holding the statute requires only that the article’s appearance supports an objective belief it is a dangerous weapon, not that the victim be present or subjectively believe it.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether subdivision 1(b) requires the victim to be physically present and to actually form the reasonable belief during the burglary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(b) requires the victim be physically present and form a reasonable belief that the article is a dangerous weapon	State: The phrase describes the nature of the article; possession of an article fashioned to make a (reasonable) person think it is a weapon is enough without the victim being present	Rogers: The statute adds an element—"the victim" must be present and actually reasonably believe the item to be a dangerous weapon	Held: The plain text requires "the victim" to be present; conviction for first-degree burglary overturned for insufficient evidence because victim was absent

State v. Rogers, 912 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. App. 2018) (court of appeals decision affirming first-degree burglary conviction under subdivision 1(b))
State v. Henderson, 907 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2018) (interpretive principles: ambiguity and statutory harmony)
State v. Bakken, 883 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Struzyk, 869 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 2015) (textual significance when legislature uses particular words)
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 844 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 2014) (words construed by common usage and grammar)
State v. Hohenwald, 815 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2012) ("the" as a limiting/delineating word)
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 776 N.W.2d 431 (Minn. 2009) (court cannot rewrite a statute under guise of interpretation)