State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0817

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Thomas Alan Krabbenhoft,
Appellant.

Filed May 26, 2020
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Clay County District Court
File No. 14-CR-18-2577

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Brian J. Melton, Clay County Attorney, Michael D. Leeser , Assistant Coun ty Attorney,
Moorhead, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Pub lic Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Worke, Pres iding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges his conspiracy-to-co mmit-theft conviction, arguing that the
evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a conspiratorial agreement. We affirm.

2
FACTS
J.J. is an asset-protection manager at a Walmart in Dilworth, Minnesota. J.J. spends
the majority of his time in street clothes on the sales floor looking for shoplifters. On
June 26, 2018, J.J. was on the sales floo r when he noticed appellant Thomas Alan
Krabbenhoft and Cody Nicholas Wolthuis in the electronics department putting a large
amount of electronics in a shopping cart, including four or five cell phones. The cell phones
drew J.J.’s attention because he was trained to look for people selecting multiple identical
items.
From the electronics department, the men went to the sporting goods department
where J.J. observed Krabbenhoft put a backpack in the cart a nd a pack of lighters in his
pocket. The men then went to the seasonal de partment where J.J. observed them fill the
backpack with the item s in the cart. J.J. contacted Officer Browning to report his
observations.
J.J. then watched Krabbenhoft and Wolthuis walk outside the garden center. Officer
Browning arrived at the store in time to see th e men pushing the cart out of the interior
doors in the garden department. One of th e men apparently spotted Officer Browning’s
squad car because the men “stopped walking, they talked to each other, they turned around,
and then they went back into the store.”
J.J. watched the men walk back into the store and go over to the grills where they
hid the backpack behind a display of charcoal . The men exited the store again, and J.J.
watched Krabbenhoft stic k the pack of lighters in the gr ille of a car. Officer Browning
noticed the pack of lighters sticking out of the front of the vehicle. Officer Browning called

3
to the men; he said: “You guy s know exactly why I’m here to talk to you.” Krabbenhoft
replied: “Yeah, but we put everything back.” Krabbenhoft eventually admitted that he took
the lighters.
Officer Browning made several attempts to ascertain the men’s identities.
Krabbenhoft initially provided a name and date of birth that dispatch was unable to find on
file. Krabbenhoft provided his name after Officer Browning told him that he was going to
be held because of the misdemeanor theft charge.
J.J. retrieved the backpack from where the men hid it behind the charcoal. The items
in the backpack totaled $1,091.67. Krabbenhoft was charged with conspiracy to commit
theft, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.52, subd. 2(a)(1), .175, subd. 2 (2016), giving a
police officer a false name and date of birth, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.506, subd. 1
(2016), and theft, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(1).
J.J. and Officer Browning testified at Kr abbenhoft’s jury tria l . T h e j u r y a l s o
watched videos from the store’s surveillance cameras showing the men in the electronics
department, in the sporting goods department, and leaving the store. Officer Browning’s
body-camera footage was also played for the jury. Krabbenhof t did not testify. The jury
found Krabbenhoft guilty on all three counts. The district court sentenced Krabbenhoft to
one year and one day in prison for the cons piracy-to-commit-theft conviction; the other
two lesser offenses were not adjudicated. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Krabbenhoft challenges his conspiracy-to-commit-theft conviction, arguing that the
state failed to prove the existe nce of an agreement. In re viewing the sufficiency of the

4
evidence supporting a co nviction, “this court reviews th e evidence in th e light most
favorable to the verdict to de termine if the evidence was suffi cient to permit the jury to
reach the verdict it did.” State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214, 225 (Minn. 1995). This court
assumes that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelie ved evidence to the
contrary. State v. Huss, 506 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 1993).
If any element of the offense was suppor ted by circumstantial evidence, this court
applies a heightened standard of review. State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. App.
2013). This standard includes a two-step analysis to determine whether the evidence was
sufficient to support the conviction. State v. Moore , 846 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Minn. 2014).
First, this court “identif[ies] the circumstances proved,” “assum[ing] that the jury resolved
any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent” with its verdict. Id. Second, this court
independently examines “the reasonableness of the inferences that might be drawn from
the circumstances proved” and determines whether the circumstances proved are consistent
with guilt and “inconsistent with any rati onal hypothesis except that of guilt.” Id.
(quotations omitted). The evidence is considered as a whole, not each piece in isolation.
State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn. 2010).
A person is guilty of a conspiracy if he “conspires with another to commit a crime
and in furtherance of the conspiracy one or more of the parties does some overt act in
furtherance of such conspiracy.” Minn. St at. § 609.175, subd. 2. An agreement is a
necessary element of a conspiracy. See State v. Hatfield , 639 N.W.2d 372, 376 (Minn.
2002). “[T]he agreement requir ed for a conspiracy need not be proved through evidence

5
of a subjective meeting of the minds, but mu st be shown by evidence that objectively
indicates an agreement.” Id.
Krabbenhoft argues that the state failed to prove the existence of an agreement, but
the evidence sufficiently supports Krabbenhoft’s conviction. First, there is direct evidence
of an agreement. When Officer Browning approached Krabbenhoft and Wolthuis in the
parking lot, he stated: “You guys know exac tly why I’m talking to you.” Krabbenhoft
replied: “We put it all back.” This reply indicates that Kr abbenhoft and Wolthuis agreed
to commit the theft and then changed their minds when they saw the officer’s squad car.
Krabbenhoft challenges this statement; he clai ms that he replied, “I put it all back.”
The state offered a transcript from Officer Browning’s body camera at Krabbenhoft’s jury
trial. The transcript was adm itted only as a court exhibit. The transcript suggests that
Krabbenhoft replied: “I put it all back.” But this is a transcription error because in the
recording, which the jury he ard, Krabbenhoft said: “We put it all back.” And Officer
Browning testified that Krabbenh oft replied: “[W]e put everyt hing back.” Furthermore,
the transcript did not go to th e jury and Krabbenhoft never claimed at trial that he said “I
put it all back.”
Moreover, evidence of Krabbenhoft’s st atement is not necessary to support the
sufficiency of the evidence becau se the men’s conduct in the store, by itself, is sufficient
to show an agreement. J.J. testified that he watched Krabbenhoft and Wolthuis in the store
together for approximately an hour and a half. J.J. testified that he knew that the men were
together because they were “right next to each other the whole time they were in the store,”
and “they were bot h putting items in the [s ame] cart.” J.J. also saw Krabbenhoft and

6
Wolthuis talking to each other, although he did not hear their conversations. J.J. testified
that he observed both men put items into the backpack and watched both men hide the
backpack. Additionally, surv eillance video from the store shows the men together.
Further, Officer Browning testified that when he was apparently spotted in the parking lot,
the men talked to each other and went back into the store. Officer Browning also testified
that he initially told the men that he would just give them trespass notices because the store
did not want them stealing from it.
These are the circumstances proved: Krabbenhoft and Wolthuis walked around the
store together for approximately an hour and a half; both men put items in one cart; the
men talked to each other as they put items in the cart; both men put items into a backpack;
the men left the store together with the ba ckpack, but upon spo tting Officer Browning,
talked to each other, and returned to the stor e; both men hid the backpack; both men left
the store together and attemp ted to avoid Officer Browning ; and Officer Browning told
both men that they would receive trespass notices. These circumstances proved are
consistent with guilt and inconsistent with the hypothesis that Krabbenhoft was planning
to commit a theft alone. Based on this record, the evidence su fficiently supports
Krabbenhoft’s conspiracy-to-commit-theft conviction.
Affirmed.