Opinion ID: 880254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the jury properly instructed on the offense of theft?

Text: Larson objects to Instruction No. 15: To convict the defendant of the charge of theft, the State must prove the following elements: First: That Sam Luinstra and Mike Luinstra were the owner or owners of the Craftsman 10-drawer toolbox, with numerous tools, 6 gallons Tru-Value antifreeze, one (1) Hi-Lift Jack, and one (1) Black and Decker 1/2 drill in questions [sic]; and Second: That the defendant purposely or knowingly obtained or exerted unauthorized control over the property just described; and Third: That the defendant had the purpose of depriving Sam Luinstra and Mike Luinstra of the property; If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty of misdemeanor theft. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty. Larson's objection is that the instruction is a comment on the evidence in that it assumes Sam and Mike Luinstra were the owners of the property and that the State proved that specific property had been taken. Larson's argument is without merit. The sentence after First in Instruction No. 15 gave the jury the task of determining whether the State had proven that Sam and Mike Luinstra were the owners of the property. The sentence after Second gave the jury the task of determining whether the State had proven that the specific property had been taken. The next-tolast sentence set forth the requirement that the State must prove each element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold that the court did not err in giving Instruction No. 15.