Court Opinion

ID: 9797727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:28:11.819264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:02.795488
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Justice,
specially concurring.
[4131] I concur almost entirely with the rationale and result of the majority opinion. I write separately only because, for several reasons, I am not convinced that these circumstances would always result in insufficient evidence for a conviction. First, the question of whether a license or certificate fits this State's particular statutory definition of "anything of value whether tangible or intangible," has not been adequately briefed or argued in this case, and I believe the matter, therefore, remains open for future decision. Second, inasmuch as the jury was instructed without objection that a license is not property, the law of the case doctrine may dictate a particular result in this case that would not be dictated in another. Third, in addition to the license or certificate, money was also obtained from the State, and it seems to me that with appropriate proof, such could be considered the very conduct forbidden by the statute. And fourth, as the majority points out, the allegations of the Information, coupled with the jury instructions, leave considerable doubt as to what act or acts of the appellant supposedly constituted the crime. In regard to this final point, I would add that this case exemplifies the considerable difficulties created by charging doc*194uments that cover a broad period of time and a broad range of conduct, yet charge only a single crime.