Court Opinion

ID: 9545263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:09:06.832519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:24.724343
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, C.J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion totally disregards the language of K.S.A. 21-3701(h).
It is elementary law in Kansas that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed. Under this doctrine ordinary words are to be given their ordinary meaning. This means a statute should not be read so as to add language which is not readily found within it. Similarly, it is not within the province of the court to read out of *405the statute what as a matter of ordinary English language is written in it. As we stated in State, ex rel., v. American Savings Stamp Co., 194 Kan. 297, 398 P.2d 1011:
“The object of the rule is to establish a rule of certainty to which the individual may safely conform without fear of the statute being misinterpreted by a court or prosecutor. If we go beyond the fair meaning of the language used in the statute and attempt enlargement by implication or intention we have abandoned certainty. Courts are not at liberty to extend by intendment statutes creating and defining crimes. . . .” (p. 300.)
Nowhere within K.S.A. 21-3701(b) is there any requirement that reliance be considered as a necessary element of the crime.
The majority opinion places importance on cases from other jurisdictions which have held the basic elements of the various theft crimes remain the same under the new consolidated theft statutes. These cases are not convincing. A careful review of the criminal statutes within these jurisdictions reveals they are easily distinguishable from our statute. Each retains the common-law language of false pretenses within the new statute, whereas our statute specifies that the acts be done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property.
The Judicial Council note pertaining to K.S.A. 21-3701 indicates the statute was drafted after examining the Illinois Criminal Code, § 16-1 and the Model Penal Code, § 223.1. In People v. Decker, 19 Ill. App.3d 86, 311 N.E.2d 228 (1974), under a statute identical to ours, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, held:
“. . . The essential elements which must be proved to sustain a charge of theft by deception are that a named person was the owner of a specified property; that the accused knowingly obtained by deception control over that property; and that the accused acted with the intent to permanently deprive the named owner of the use and benefit of that property.” (p. 97.)
Nowhere does the Illinois court indicate that actual reliance by the victim on the deception is a necessary element to sustain the conviction.
Moreover, in State v. Adair, 215 Kan. 54, 523 P.2d 360, a case involving theft by deception, our court correctly set forth the elements needed to convict under the statute without mentioning reliance. We said:
“. . . In order to convict the defendant of theft by deception it was neces*406sary for the state to prove that Mary Passler was the owner of the $5300, that the defendant obtained by deception control over the $5300, and that the defendant intended to deprive Mary Passler permanently of the use or benefit of her property. . . .” (pp. 56-57.)
The state proved intent and deception on the part of the defendant under the case at bar; the alertness of the intended victim should not excuse or lessen the seriousness of the act.
State v. Visco, 183 Kan. 562, 331 P.2d 318, a case involving an attempt to obtain money by false pretenses, was decided under our former statute, G.S. 1949, 21-551. There, the defendant contended because the intended victim was “on” to the scheme, he was in no way deceived. Our court said:
“. . . There was no legal impossibility to consummate the offense — only a factual impossibility. — the failure to deceive McEndree. The requisite intent to deceive was present; there was performance of several overt acts toward the commission of the offense, and it failed of consummation only because of the alertness of the intended victim. . . .” (p. 567.)
The same is true here. There was no crime until after the defendant passed through the checkout stand and paid the lesser amount, because it is not a crime to take one sales tag and replace it with another.
We are presented with a question of grave interest and importance to merchants. Store security personnel are required to use extreme care when detaining or stopping anyone outside the store. The security guard, Donna Snyder, could do little more than watch the defendant until she attempted to pay the lesser amount and leave. Following the reasoning of the majority opinion to its logical extreme, anyone other than the security personnel of Richman-Gordman could have arrested the defendant because of the reliance element. It is difficult, indeed, to imagine a situation where store personnel will be deceived in tag switch situations. Most stores utilize a marking method through double tagging which makes it possible for a sales clerk or cashier to identify the sales item. Is it no less a crime, then, because the sales personnel cannot be deceived? I think not. The majority opinion adds another element not included in the statute which makes it virtually impossible to secure a conviction in these cases.
Furthermore, the necessary elements of theft under K.S.A. 21-3701 do not include all of the elements of the crimes which 21-3701 replaces. For example, asportation, an element of larceny under our old statute G.S. 1949, 21-533, is no longer an element *407under the new statute. Nor are the common-law elements included in the instructions given for theft under PIK, Criminal, § 59.01 which the trial court followed in this case.
Furthermore, in this case the record reflects the cashier, Carol Grandstaff, was warned to watch for a suspicious-looking customer fitting the defendant’s description. She stated on direct examination at least two different times, “I didn’t know whether it [referring to the price on the tag] was the right price or not.” Even under the rules formulated by the majority, to which I do not agree, the cashier was deceived in that she was not sure of the correct price of the items.
It is respectfully submitted, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Miller, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.