Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.46.110 (2026)
Consolidation of theft offenses: Pleading and proof
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.46.110. Consolidation of theft offenses: Pleading and proof.
(a) Each instance of conduct defined as theft under AS 11.46.100 constitutes theft in the first, second, third, or fourth degree.
(b) An accusation of theft is sufficient if it alleges that the defendant committed theft of property or services of the nature or value required for the commission of the crime charged without designating the particular way or manner in which the theft was committed.
(c) Proof that the defendant engaged in conduct constituting theft as defined in AS 11.46.100 is sufficient to support a conviction based upon any indictment, information, or complaint for theft.
(a) Each instance of conduct defined as theft under AS 11.46.100 constitutes theft in the first, second, third, or fourth degree.
(b) An accusation of theft is sufficient if it alleges that the defendant committed theft of property or services of the nature or value required for the commission of the crime charged without designating the particular way or manner in which the theft was committed.
(c) Proof that the defendant engaged in conduct constituting theft as defined in AS 11.46.100 is sufficient to support a conviction based upon any indictment, information, or complaint for theft.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: State of Iowa v. Betty Ann Nall, 894 N.W.2d 514 (Iowa 2017).
State of Iowa v. Betty Ann Nall, 894 N.W.2d 514 (Iowa 2017). “See Alaska Stat. Ann. § 11.46.110 (West, Westlaw current through 2016 2d Reg.”
Williams v. State, 648 P.2d 603 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “The commentary to the code which discusses AS 11.46.110, quoting 1978 Senate Journal Supp.”
Jones v. State, 493 A.2d 1062 (Md. 1985). “§ 18-4-401 (1973); Conn. Gen. Stat. tit. 53a § 119 (1985); Del.”
Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993). “The Criminal Code Revision Subcommission explained the need for AS 11.46.110: Under the Revised Code, a charge of theft is sufficient without designating the particular means by which the property was obtained.”
State v. Saathoff, 29 P.3d 236 (Alaska 2001). “The court of appeals noted that the legislature's purpose to consolidate all forms of theft into one unified crime is evident in AS 11.46.110, the statute concerning the government's pleading and proof in theft cases.”
Saathoff v. State, 991 P.2d 1280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1999). “100 (the statute defining theft) and AS 11.46.110 (the statute directing the consolidation of all theft offenses for purposes of pleading and proof), as well as in the legislative commentary to these statutes.”
Buckwalter v. State, 23 P.3d 81 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “120; AS 11.46.110(b). 20 . See State v. Waskey, 834 P.”
Amended July 18, 2017 State of Iowa v. Betty Ann Nall (Iowa 2017). “See Alaska Stat. Ann. § 11.46.110 (West, Westlaw current through 2016 2d Reg.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.110(b) — 3 cases
Williams v. State, 648 P.2d 603 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “The commentary to the code which discusses AS 11.46.110, quoting 1978 Senate Journal Supp.”
Cheely v. State, 850 P.2d 653 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993). “The Criminal Code Revision Subcommission explained the need for AS 11.46.110: Under the Revised Code, a charge of theft is sufficient without designating the particular means by which the property was obtained.”
Buckwalter v. State, 23 P.3d 81 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “120; AS 11.46.110(b). 20 . See State v. Waskey, 834 P.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.