Summary
The Supreme Court of Washington held that value is not an essential element of third degree theft under Washington law and therefore need not be alleged in the charging information. The court affirmed Zachary E. Tinker's conviction, distinguishing cases involving higher-degree theft charges or multiple theft degrees where value is necessary to identify the charged offense.
Holdings
- Value is not an essential element of third degree theft under Washington law.
- The information was sufficient because it alleged the elements of third degree theft without specifying the value of the property.
Questions Presented
- Whether value is an essential element of third degree theft under Washington law that must be alleged in the charging information.
- Whether the information was constitutionally defective because it omitted the value of the property allegedly stolen.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (13)
- State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d 93, 97, 812 P.2d 86 (1991)(followed)
- State v. Johnson, 119 Wash. 2d 143, 147, 149-50, 829 P.2d 1078 (1992)(followed)
- State v. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d 679, 686, 782 P.2d 552 (1989)(followed)
- State v. Wadsworth, 139 Wash. 2d 724, 734, 991 P.2d 80 (2000)(followed)
- State v. Rogers, 30 Wash. App. 653, 655, 638 P.2d 89 (1981)(followed)
- State v. Moavenzadeh, 135 Wash. 2d 359, 361, 364, 956 P.2d 1097 (1998)(distinguished)
- State v. Ward, 148 Wash. 2d 803, 812-13, 64 P.3d 640 (2003)(followed)
- State v. Ellard, 46 Wash. App. 242, 730 P.2d 109 (1986)(followed)
- Schmidt v. Cornerstone Invs., Inc., 115 Wash. 2d 148, 160, 795 P.2d 1143 (1990)(followed)
- Saunders v. Lloyd's of London, 113 Wash. 2d 330, 345, 779 P.2d 249 (1989)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…