CASE LAW UPDATE: Did the evidence establish conspiracy to commit theft?
Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit theft. On appeal, defendant contended that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to prove conspiracy to commit theft. The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that the evidence showed that defendant and another walked around a store, put items in a cart while talking to each other, put items into a backpack, left the store together with the backpack, and then jointly returned to the store after seeing a police officer and hid the backpack. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the evidence was consistent with guilt and inconsistent with the hypothesis that defendant was planning to commit theft alone.
State v. Krabbenhoft, A19-0817, Clay County.
Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.