Opinion ID: 1956189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Included Offense Issue.

Text: The trial court refused to submit fifth-degree theft as an included offense. The question is whether, under our legal or elements test, the refusal to submit fifth-degree theft was error. For a lesser offense to be included in the greater, our test requires that the lesser offense be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater offense. State v. Coffin, 504 N.W.2d 893, 896 (Iowa 1993), accord State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 736 (Iowa 1988). The elements of first-degree theft, as submitted in this case, are that (1) the defendant took possession or control of the property from the person of the victim, (2) the defendant had the intent to deprive the owner of the property, and (3) the property belonged to the victim. Instruction No. 11. See Iowa Code §§ 714.1, .2 (1991). The elements of fifth-degree theft, as to which the court refused to instruct, are that (1) the defendant took possession or control of the property, (2) he had the intent to deprive the person of their property, (3) the property belonged to the individual, and (4) the property did not exceed fifty dollars in value. See Iowa Code §§ 714.1(1), .2(5). Iowa Code section 714.2(1) provides that theft of an amount exceeding $5000 constitutes first-degree theft. It also provides that any theft from the person of another is first-degree theft, regardless of value. The latter alternative was the one submitted here. In a charge of first-degree theft under the stealing-from-the-person alternative, fifth-degree theft is not composed solely of the elements of first-degree theft because it has the added dimension of value. Because fifth-degree theft is not an included offense under this test, it was not error for the court to refuse to submit it. We vacate the court of appeals decision and affirm the judgment of the district court. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.