Minnesota Theft and Robbery Defense Attorney

Theft Charges Can Arise in Many Ways 

When people hear “theft,” they often picture shoplifting. Minnesota law covers a much broader range of conduct. 

A person may face theft-related allegations involving: 

• Shoplifting or retail theft 
• Taking money or property from an employer 
• Keeping property found or delivered by mistake 
• Using another person’s property without permission 
• Failing to return leased or rented property 
• Taking services without paying 
• Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle 
• Misusing business or client funds 
• Receiving or possessing stolen property 
• Taking merchandise during an emergency or civil disturbance 
• Using devices intended to defeat store security systems 

Someone does not necessarily have to be caught carrying an item out of a store. A theft case may be built around video, receipts, account records, employee statements, text messages, or assumptions about who had access to property.

Receiving Stolen Property Can Also Lead to Charges 

You do not have to be accused of personally stealing an item to face a theft-related prosecution. 

Minnesota law makes it a crime to receive, possess, transfer, buy, or conceal stolen property when a person knows—or has reason to know—that the property was stolen or obtained through robbery. The possible sentence generally follows the same penalty structure used for theft. 

These cases often raise difficult questions. 

Was the purchase price unusually low? Did the seller give a believable explanation? Were serial numbers removed? Was the property mixed in with someone else’s belongings? Did the accused person actually know where it came from? 

Possession alone may not tell the full story. The state must still prove the required knowledge or reason to know. 

Simple Robbery Is a Serious Felony 

Minnesota defines simple robbery as taking property from a person or in the person’s presence while using or threatening the immediate use of force to overcome resistance or compel the person to give up the property. 

A conviction can carry: 

• Up to 10 years in prison 
• A fine of up to $20,000 
• Both prison and a fine 

The force does not always have to cause an injury. An allegation that someone pushed a store employee, grabbed a purse from a person’s hands, or threatened harm during a taking may be enough for prosecutors to consider a robbery charge. 

A situation that begins as suspected shoplifting can become much more serious when a confrontation occurs at the door.

Intent Is Often a Central Issue 

Theft is not always established simply because someone possessed property that belonged to another person. The prosecution may need to prove that the person acted with the intent required by the statute. That question can become especially important when property was borrowed, shared, abandoned, mistakenly taken, or involved in a dispute over ownership. 

For example, two former partners may disagree over who owns furniture, electronics, or a vehicle. An employee may believe they had permission to use company property. A shopper may leave a store without noticing that an item remained under a cart or inside a bag. 

Those explanations do not automatically defeat a charge, but they may matter when evaluating whether the state can prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Possible Defenses to Theft and Robbery Charges 

The appropriate defense depends on the facts. Common issues may include: 

• Lack of intent 
• Mistaken identity 
• Consent or permission 
• A genuine claim of ownership 
• Unreliable witness testimony 
• Incorrect property valuation 
• Lack of knowledge that property was stolen 
• No use or threat of force 
• An unlawful search or seizure 
• An involuntary or improperly obtained statement 
• Insufficient evidence 

In some cases, the goal may be dismissal or acquittal. In others, the most practical result may involve reducing the charge, limiting incarceration, seeking diversion when available, or protecting employment and licensing interests. 

A careful defense begins with understanding what the state can prove, not merely what it has alleged.