Yes, he legally stole the van. The court said that old laws required a thief to actually move the stolen item, even a little bit, for it to count as theft. But the modern law is different. Now, all that matters is whether the person took 'control' of the property. By breaking in and activating the van's electrical system, Donaldson was controlling it in a way he wasn't allowed to. He didn't have to start the engine or drive off for his actions to be considered a completed theft.

Yes, Donaldson did enough to be guilty of stealing the van. We say he's guilty because he took control of the van by messing with its electrical stuff. In Iowa, you don't have to actually move something to steal it. You just need to take control of it in a way that shows you want to keep it from its real owner. When Donaldson broke in and started messing with the van's wires and turning on its systems, he was controlling it in a way he wasn't allowed to. It doesn't matter that he didn't get to drive it away before he was caught. He was already stealing it when he started trying to make it work without a key.

Yes, a person takes possession or control of a vehicle for the purposes of the Iowa theft statute under these circumstances. Iowa's theft statute, based on the Model Penal Code, replaces the common law larceny requirements of 'caption' (taking) and 'asportation' (carrying away) with the modern standard of 'possession or control.' A theft is complete when the actor secures dominion over the object or uses it in a manner beyond their authority. Movement or operation of the vehicle is not required. By entering the van, dismantling the steering column, and manipulating the wires to engage the electrical system, Donaldson exercised unauthorized control and wrongful dominion over the property, sufficient to complete the offense of theft. His actions were steps to set the vehicle's motive power in motion, and the crime was complete the moment he exerted this control with the intent to deprive the owner of the van.

Yes. I affirm the conviction for second-degree theft. Donaldson exercised control over the van by manipulating its electrical systems, which under Iowa law constitutes possession or control sufficient for theft. We have abandoned the common law requirement of 'asportation' or physical movement of the property. Our statute focuses on 'possession or control' rather than physical relocation. Possession or control begins when the actor secures dominion over the object or uses it in a manner beyond his authority. Donaldson's actions of breaking into the van, dismantling the steering column, and activating various electrical systems demonstrated unauthorized control and an intent to deprive the owner of the van. The fact that he was interrupted before starting the engine does not negate the completed theft. At the moment Donaldson began manipulating the electrical wires to start the engine, he exerted complete control over the vehicle. His actions surpassed mere attempt and constituted a completed theft offense.

State v. Donaldson

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot