State v. Kaufman
310 N.W.2d 709, 1981 N.D. LEXIS 324 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property that is stolen from its owner and subsequently abandoned by the thief is considered "lost" property for the purpose of a statute criminalizing the appropriation of lost property.
Facts:
- Jamestown West End Hide and Fur Company purchased several large rolls of scrap copper wire and stored them in its open yard.
- In early December 1980, Archie Oster, a partner in the company, discovered that several rolls of the wire were missing.
- Frank Kaufman found a large roll of copper wire, stating he found it "out by Windsor".
- On December 4, 1980, Kaufman sold a roll of copper wire to Porter Brothers, another local junk dealership.
- Oster identified the wire Kaufman sold to Porter Brothers as the same type of wire that was missing from his company's yard, noting it had its rubber coating burned off, a practice his company followed.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Kaufman was charged with theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake in the Stutsman County Court of Increased Jurisdiction, the trial court.
- Following a trial, the trial judge found Kaufman guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Kaufman to six months in jail, with a portion suspended, plus a fine and restitution.
- Kaufman, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is property which is stolen and later abandoned by the thief considered "lost" for the purpose of a statute that criminalizes the appropriation of lost property?
Opinions:
Majority - Paulson, J.
Yes. Property that is stolen and subsequently abandoned by the thief is legally considered "lost" for the purposes of the theft statute. The court reasons that the term "lost" primarily concerns the owner's perspective, focusing on an "involuntary change of location or inability to find." Whether the property was misplaced by the owner or abandoned by a thief is irrelevant; in both scenarios, the true owner has involuntarily lost possession and cannot locate it. Adopting the defendant's interpretation would create an anomalous result where a finder could escape criminal liability simply because the property they found had been, unbeknownst to them, previously stolen. This would undermine the statute's purpose, which is to hold individuals accountable for appropriating property they know belongs to another, regardless of how they came to find it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and broadens the legal definition of "lost property" within theft statutes. By including property abandoned by a thief, the court shifts the focus from the property's history to the finder's intent and the owner's dispossession. This precedent prevents defendants from using the property's prior stolen status as a technical defense, thus closing a potential loophole in laws against theft by finding. Future cases will likely apply this standard, focusing on whether the property was involuntarily out of the owner's possession and whether the finder had the requisite knowledge and intent to deprive the owner of it.
