Opinion ID: 2253031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evolution of the Statute.

Text: Three major changes to the statutes governing the crimes of theft and receiving stolen property are relevant to our inquiry. We begin with the statutory definitions of theft and receiving stolen property as enacted by the 1963 legislature (the 1963 Act). The 1963 Act read in relevant part: Theft in general. A person commits theft when he (1) knowingly: (a) obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of the owner ... ... . (d) obtains control over stolen property, knowing the property to have been stolen by another... . 1963 Ind. Acts (ss), ch. 10, § 3. [8] Subsection (d) covers, of course, receiving stolen property. The legislature itself said of the 1963 Act: The general purpose of this act is to unify several traditional distinct offenses against person and property in order to eliminate pointless procedural obstacles to the conviction of thieves and swindlers. ... . Specifically, it is the purpose of this act to consolidate all of the theft group of crimes except robbery, and traditional terminology has been abandoned in order that that purpose may be achieved. Consequently, whenever the terms larceny, obtaining by false pretenses, embezzlement, receiving or concealing stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, blackmail, or similar terms are used in any existing procedural or substantive statute, they shall be construed to mean theft as described herein. 1963 Ind. Acts (ss), ch. 10, § 2. The consolidation in Indiana of offenses  including receiving stolen property  into a single crime of theft paralleled the recommendations of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code. The following excerpt from its commentary on the receiving stolen property offense sheds light both on the purpose of criminalizing this behavior and the actual thief problem: [B]oth analytical and practical grounds suggest that receiving should be assimilated to theft. Analytically, the receiver does precisely what is forbidden by [the theft statute]  namely, he exercises unlawful control over property of another with a purpose to deprive. From a practical standpoint, it is important to punish receivers in order to discourage theft. The existence and functioning of the fence, i.e., a dealer who provides a market for stolen property, is an assurance to thieves, and especially to professional thieves, of the ability to realize gain from their unlawful activity. It is also frequently difficult to differentiate those who take from those who hold stolen property for disposition, and it is therefore not uncommon for prosecutors to charge suspected thieves with both taking and receiving. ... . Consolidation [of receiving with other forms of theft] reduces the opportunity for technical defenses based upon legal distinctions between the closely related activities of stealing and receiving. One who is found in possession of recently stolen goods may be either the thief or the receiver. If the prosecution can prove the requisite state of mind to deprive the true owner of the property, it makes little difference whether the jury infers that the defendant took directly from the owner or acquired the goods from another person who committed the act of taking. Consolidation also has a consequence favorable to the defense by precluding conviction of both offenses for the same transaction. Under prior law, multiple liability occasionally occurred, as where the defendant was held guilty as a principal in the original theft for helping to plan that crime and also of the separate offense of receiving for taking his share of the proceeds. Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 223.6, cmt. 1 (Official Draft and Revised Commentaries 1980) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). The second major change to the theft and receiving stolen property statutes came in 1976 and 1977 when consolidation of theft-type offenses reached its zenith. [9] The list of subsections comprising different types of theft was repealed altogether and replaced by a simple proscription on exerting unauthorized control over property of another person with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use. A new definitions section, Indiana Code § 35-43-4-1, provided: As used in this chapter exert control over property means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property. Following these changes, Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2 provided: A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony. 1976 Ind. Acts, P.L. 148, § 3, as amended by 1977 Ind. Acts, P.L. 340, § 45 (collectively, the 1977 Act). The third change in the statute important to our inquiry came in 1979 when the legislature denominated the provision just cited as subsection (a) of Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2 and added the crime of receiving stolen property as subsection (b). As amended, Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2 read: (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony. (b) A person who knowingly or intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another that has been the subject of theft commits receiving stolen property, a Class D felony. The language of the statute relevant to our inquiry here remains the same today.