State v. Townsend, A18-0792

• Decision Date: 25 March 2020
• Docket Number: A18-0792
• Citation: 941 N.W.2d 108
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Savonte Maurice TOWNSEND, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

941 N.W.2d 108

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Savonte Maurice TOWNSEND, Appellant.

A18-0792

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: March 25, 2020

OPINION

MCKEIG, Justice.

The question in this case is what force is necessary to establish the offense of simple robbery under Minn. Stat. § 609.24 (2018). Following a bench trial, appellant Savonte Townsend was convicted of simple robbery. On appeal, Townsend argues that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to prove that her temporary use of force overcame another person’s resistance. Because the force element of simple robbery is satisfied the moment an actor uses force for the purpose of overcoming another’s resistance to the taking or carrying away of property, and because Townsend’s use of force is undisputed, we affirm.

FACTS

In May 2017, Townsend and another woman entered a liquor store in St. Louis Park and placed liquor bottles inside their purses.¹ When an employee asked Townsend and the other woman to pay for the bottles, they ran past the employee and into the entryway of the store. The employee attempted to stop Townsend from leaving with the unpaid merchandise by grabbing Townsend’s shirt. Townsend yelled for the other woman, who had run ahead, to get mace. The employee did not see any mace, but believed that he was going to be sprayed with mace.

The employee then pushed Townsend up against a wall in the entryway of the store using his left forearm while "tug of warring" over Townsend’s purse with his right hand. Townsend said, "I'm going to bite you, I'm going to bite you," and tried to bite the employee’s arm. The employee recoiled from Townsend’s threat and let go of her. On her way toward the exit, Townsend slipped and fell on the floor. The employee then "re-engaged" and grabbed Townsend’s purse. At some point during their struggle, the employee sprained his ankle. The employee’s uniform was torn open and ripped, destroying one sleeve. The employee’s necklace was also ripped off, breaking the chain. While once again "tug of warring" over the purse, Townsend and the employee left the store. Once they were both outside the store, the employee recovered the bottles of liquor from Townsend’s purse and let her go. Townsend ran away.

Townsend was charged with one count of simple robbery. Following a bench trial, Townsend was convicted of simple robbery and sentenced to 51 months in prison. Townsend appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Townsend , 925 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. App. 2019). We granted Townsend’s petition for review.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Townsend argues that her robbery conviction should be reversed because of insufficient evidence. When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, assuming the fact-finder believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary. State v. Moore , 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). We will not overturn a verdict if the fact-finder could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lopez , 908 N.W.2d 334, 335 (Minn. 2018). When the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we are presented with a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. State v. Vasko , 889 N.W.2d 551, 556 (Minn. 2017).

I.

This case requires us to interpret the meaning of the phrase "uses ... force against any person to overcome the person’s resistance" in the simple-robbery statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.24. Specifically, we must determine whether an individual must actually overcome another person’s resistance to commit the offense.

The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous. State v. Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d 432, 435 (Minn. 2017). A statute is ambiguous only if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Id. If the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, we do not engage in any further construction. State v. Maurstad , 733 N.W.2d 141, 148 (Minn. 2007).

If a statute does not define a word or phrase, we may look to the dictionary definitions of the words. State v. Prigge , 907 N.W.2d 635, 638 (Minn. 2018) ; see Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018). Because the meaning of a phrase often depends on how it is being used in the context of the statute, we examine words and phrases in context. See State v. Henderson , 907 N.W.2d 623, 626 (Minn. 2018). We also interpret statutes according to the rules of grammar. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , 875 N.W.2d 289, 296 (Minn. 2016).

We begin our analysis by examining the text of the simple-robbery statute, which states in relevant part:

Whoever, having knowledge of not being entitled thereto, takes personal property from the person or in the presence of another and uses or threatens the imminent use of force against any person to overcome the person’s resistance or powers of resistance to, or to compel acquiescence in, the taking or carrying away of the property is guilty of robbery ....

Minn. Stat. § 609.24. In this case, we are focused on only one phrase in the text of the statute: "uses ... force against any person to overcome the person’s resistance."² Id. Because the Legislature did not define this phrase in this statute, we turn to dictionary definitions. See Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1).

Townsend argues that the infinitive phrase "to overcome" functions as an adjective and modifies the direct object "force." Following Townsend’s interpretation, the phrase "to overcome" would describe the type of force required: force that actually overcomes resistance. In contrast, the State argues that the infinitive phrase functions as an adverb and modifies the verb "uses." Because we conclude that the position presented by the State is the only reasonable interpretation, the statute is unambiguous.

"Infinitive phrases, usually constructed around to plus the base form of the verb (to call , to drink ), can function as nouns, as adjectives, or as adverbs." Diana Hacker & Nancy Sommers, A Writer’s Reference 319 (9th ed. 2018). "Adverbial infinitive phrases usually qualify the meaning of the verb, telling when, where, how, why, under what conditions, or to what degree an action occurred." Id.

Here, the infinitive phrase "to overcome" functions as an adverb that describes the purpose for using force. Considered in context, the phrase "to overcome" in the simple-robbery statute requires that an actor use force for the purpose of overcoming another person’s resistance to the taking or carrying away of property. This interpretation of the simple-robbery statute aligns with the common and accepted use of the word "to" as "in order to." See Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 460 (3d ed. 2011) ("The phrase in order to is often wordy for the simple infinitive—e.g.: ‘In order to [read To ] avoid ....’ ") (brackets in original); see also Bryan A. Garner, The Red Book: A Manual on Legal Style 245 (4th ed. 2018) (recommending that authors replace "in order to" with "to").

This interpretation is also consistent with our precedent. In State v. Kvale , we recognized that "[t]he robbery statute speaks of using force or threats to compel acquiescence in either the taking or the carrying away of the property," and not "merely us[ing] force to escape." 302 N.W.2d 650, 652–53 (Minn. 1981). We explained that the simple-robbery statute requires "only that the use of force or threats precede or accompany either the taking or the carrying away and that the force or threats be used to overcome the victim’s resistance or compel [the victim’s] acquiescence in the taking or carrying away." Id. at 653. Here, our interpretation of the phrase "uses ... force against any person to overcome the person’s resistance ... [in] the taking or carrying away of the property" distinguishes the use of force necessary to complete the offense of simple robbery from other possible purposes for using force.³ See also State v. Brown , 597 N.W.2d 299, 303-04 (Minn. App. 1999) (finding sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for aggravated robbery where "the jury could reasonably conclude that [the defendant’s] use of force accompanied the carrying away of the [property] and was intended to overcome [the store employee’s] resistance to the carrying away") (emphasis added), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 14, 1999).

Townsend’s interpretation of "to overcome" is unreasonable because it ignores the distinctive nature of simple robbery. The use of force is the characteristic element that differentiates robbery from theft, not whether the amount of force is sufficient to deter or avert a victim’s resistance.⁴ See State v. Burrell , 506 N.W.2d 34, 37 (Minn. App. 1993) ("Mere force suffices for the simple robbery statute."), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993); State v. Stanifer , 382 N.W.2d 213, 220 (Minn. App. 1986) ("Simple robbery is basically a theft accomplished by means of an assaultive act.").

Townsend argues that the element of force is satisfied only if the use or threat of force successfully overcomes another’s resistance. But robbery does not depend on a layperson’s understanding of "success." See State v. Solomon , 359 N.W.2d 19, 21 (Minn. 1984) (recognizing that a jury composed of non-lawyers may struggle with the technical meaning of an element of simple robbery). A robbery is complete the moment all of the elements have been satisfied, even if the actor is unable to escape or ultimately drops the property to run. See id. ("[T]he fact that the control or dominion did not last long does not make any difference."). It is therefore unreasonable to interpret the phrase "to overcome" to require proof that the actor was "successful" in the use of force.

Because the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase "uses ......