Opinion ID: 884016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court err in refusing Smith's proposed jury instructions on theft of lost or mislaid property?

Text: Faced with alternative charges of felony theft and felony theft of stolen property, Smith filed a pretrial memorandum addressing what he denominated as the § 45-6-302, MCA, lesser included offense of theft of lost or mislaid property, a misdemeanor. He also submitted a series of proposed jury instructions on that offense, all of which were refused by the District Court. Smith argues that he was entitled to the instructions and that the court's refusal to give them constituted error. A criminal defendant is entitled to a requested lesser included offense instruction where, based on the evidence, the jury rationally could be warranted in convicting on the lesser offense and acquitting on the greater offense. Section 46-16-607(2), MCA; State v. Fisch (1994), 266 Mont. 520, 522, 881 P.2d 626, 628. Thus, we first must determine whether, as a matter of law, theft of lost or mislaid property is a lesser included offense of theft of stolen property. If so, we then must determine whether Smith's proposed instructions were supported by the evidence. Insofar as it is relevant here, an included offense is statutorily defined as one which is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged[.] Section 46-1-202(8)(a), MCA. The term facts, as used in the statute, refers to the statutory elements of the offense and not the individual facts of each case. State v. Ritchson (1981), 193 Mont. 112, 116, 630 P.2d 234, 237. Section 46-1-202(8)(a), MCA, does not, by its terms, define a lesser included offense. The test we traditionally have applied in determining whether an offense is a lesser included offense of another offense was stated in Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed 306, 309. See, e.g., State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 163, 875 P.2d 307, 330; State v. Long (1986), 223 Mont. 502, 510, 726 P.2d 1364, 1369. In the context of a defendant's entitlement to jury instructions on an alleged lesser included offense, we have characterized the Blockburger test as stating that separate distinct offenses require proof of additional facts, where lesser included offenses do not. Long, 726 P.2d at 1369. Applying that test in Long, we concluded that the statutes defining misdemeanor assault and sexual assault clearly indicate that misdemeanor assault is not a lesser included offense of sexual assault because misdemeanor assault requires proof that the physical contact be of an insulting or provoking nature and no such proof is required for sexual assault. Long, 726 P.2d at 1369. The offense of theft of stolen property is committed when a person purposely or knowingly obtains control over stolen property, knowing the property to have been stolen by another, and has the purpose of depriving the owner of the property. Section 45-6-301(3)(a), MCA. Thus, to establish the offense of theft of stolen property, the State must prove  among other things  that the property was stolen and that the defendant knew the property was stolen by another person. The offense of theft of lost or mislaid property is committed when a person obtains control over lost or mislaid property and: (a) knows or learns the identity of the owner or knows, is aware of, or learns of a reasonable method of identifying the owner; (b) fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner; and (c) has the purpose of depriving the owner permanently of the use or benefit of the property. Section 45-6-302, MCA. To establish the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property, the State must prove  among other things  that the property was lost or mislaid; that the defendant knew or learned the owner's identity or learned of a reasonable method of identifying the owner; and that the defendant failed to take reasonable measures to return the property. It is clear from this limited comparison of the elements of the offenses of theft of stolen property and theft of lost or mislaid property that these are distinct offenses, each of which requires proof of at least one fact that the other does not. While both offenses are premised on a person obtaining control over property belonging to another, the very nature of the property at the time control is obtained is markedly different in the two offenses: for one offense, the State must prove that the property was stolen property while, for the other offense, the State must prove that the property was lost or mislaid property. Nor does the existence of a substantially similar element in the two offenses  has the purpose of depriving the owner of the property in the offense of theft of stolen property and has the purpose of depriving the owner permanently of the use or benefit of the property in theft of lost or mislaid property ( see §§ 45-6-301(3)(a) and 45-6-302(c), MCA)  render the latter a lesser included offense of the former. Substantial overlap in the proof which would be offered to establish both offenses does not make one offense a lesser included offense of another where each requires proof of different facts. Arlington, 875 P.2d at 330. Thus, we conclude that theft of lost or mislaid property is not a lesser included offense of theft of stolen property. As we observed at the outset of our discussion of this issue, we need only reach the secondary question of whether evidence supported Smith's proposed instructions regarding theft of lost or mislaid property if we determine that that offense is a lesser included offense of theft of stolen property. Having concluded otherwise, no amount of evidence could have entitled Smith to instructions on the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property. We hold, therefore, that the District Court did not err in refusing Smith's instructions.