State v. Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d 432

Early morning, J.V. left his car running in his driveway; Somsalao Thonesavanh was found sitting inside with doors locked and rear lights on.
Police persuaded Thonesavanh to exit; he was arrested and charged with motor-vehicle theft under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17).
District court dismissed the motor-vehicle-theft charge for lack of probable cause, construing “takes” to require movement (asportation).
Court of appeals affirmed, finding the statute ambiguous and applying the rule of lenity to require movement.
Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether “takes” requires moving the vehicle or whether adverse possession (temporary control/dominion) suffices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thonesavanh)	Held
Whether the word "takes" in Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) requires movement of the vehicle	"Takes" means adverse possession or control; movement is not required	"Takes" requires asportation/carrying away (movement) to complete the offense	"Takes" does not require movement; adverse possession suffices
Whether the statute is ambiguous and how to resolve ambiguity	Statute ambiguous but best resolved by canons favoring adverse-possession meaning	Ambiguity should be resolved under rule of lenity in defendant’s favor (movement)	Statute is ambiguous on text, but canons (surplusage, in pari materia, common-law meaning) resolve it for the State; rule of lenity is last resort
Proper role/timing of the rule of lenity	Lenity applies only after exhausting other interpretive canons	Lenity may be applied earlier; Minnesota precedent sometimes applied lenity sooner	Rule of lenity is a canon of last resort and does not override other canons here
Whether "takes" and "drives" must be given distinct meanings	Yes; "drives" implies movement, "takes" should mean control/possession to avoid surplusage	Defendant argues both require movement	Court gives distinct meanings: "drives" = movement; "takes" = adverse possession/control

State v. Madden, 137 Minn. 249, 163 N.W. 507 (Minn. 1917) (distinguishes taking (control/dominion) from carrying away (asportation) in motor-vehicle larceny)
State v. Solomon, 359 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1984) (temporary control or dominion can complete robbery-related taking without carry-away)
State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014) (rule of lenity applies only after other canons exhausted)
State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. 2013) (resolving statutory ambiguity by selecting the better interpretation)
United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76 (U.S. 1820) (historic articulation of strict construction in penal statutes)