Opinion ID: 2112402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: grand theft counts

Text: Although I agree with the majority's analysis of the continuing plan or scheme principle, I assert that it is misapplied. It is for the jury, and not this Court, to ascertain whether the conduct of defendant amounted to more than one offense. In State v. Kieffer 17 S.D. 67, 72, 95 N.W. 289, 291 (1903), cited by the majority, we said: It was for the jury to say, therefore, under the instruction of the court, whether or not the animal which the accused was charged with feloniously taking ... was taken at the same time with the other animals alleged to have been feloniously taken by him. The importance of this jury finding was that if the animals were taken at the same time it equaled one offense. Likewise, in this case, if the jury would have found that there was a continuing impulse, intent, plan, or scheme, Johnston could only have been convicted on one count. However, under appropriate instructions, they would have an opportunity to find, should the evidence permit, that there was no such continuing intent, and thus find him guilty of other thefts. In this `case, no such instruction was presented to the jury. Many of the jurisdictions following the general rule espoused by the majority, expressly recognize that whether the continuous intent, scheme or plan exists is a question for the jury. See Kieffer, supra; People v. Bailey, 55 Cal.2d 514, 11 Cal.Rptr. 543, 360 P.2d 39 (1961); Woods v. People, 222 Ill. 293, 78 N.E. 607 (1906); State v. Vandewater, 203 Iowa 94, 212 N.W. 339 (1927); Horsey v. State, 225 Md. 80, 169 A.2d 457 (1961); Ex parte Jones, 46 Mont. 122, 126 P. 929 (1912); State v. Sampson, 120 N.H. 251, 413 A.2d 590 (1980); State v. Pedroncelli, 100 N.M. 678, 675 P.2d 127 (1984); State v. Elliott, 89 N.M. 756, 557 P.2d 1105 (1977); State v. Allen, 59 N.M. 139, 280 P.2d 298 (1955); People v. Robinson, 97 Misc.2d 47, 411 N.Y.S.2d 793 (1978); People v. Hunt, 7 Misc.2d 320, 166 N.Y.S.2d 524 (1957); Barnes v. State, 43 Tex.Crim. 355, 65 S.W. 922 (1901); Cody v. State, 31 Tex.Crim. 183, 20 S.W. 398 (1892); State v. Vining, 2 Wash.App. 802, 472 P.2d 564 (1970) (courts stated this was a question for the jury to determine under a proper instruction). Therefore, we should remand for a new trial with appropriate instructions (in that regard, I agree with the majority's disposition under its issue I.)