Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180 (2026)
Theft by deception
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.46.180. Theft by deception.
(a) A person commits theft by deception if, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person, the person obtains the property of another by deception.
(b) In a prosecution based on theft by deception, if the state seeks to prove that the defendant used deception by promising performance which the defendant did not intend to perform or knew would not be performed, that intent or knowledge may not be established solely by or inferred solely from the fact that the promise was not performed.
(c) As used in this section, “deception” has the meaning ascribed to it in AS 11.81.900 but does not include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance or “puffing” by statements unlikely to deceive reasonable persons in the group addressed.
(a) A person commits theft by deception if, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person, the person obtains the property of another by deception.
(b) In a prosecution based on theft by deception, if the state seeks to prove that the defendant used deception by promising performance which the defendant did not intend to perform or knew would not be performed, that intent or knowledge may not be established solely by or inferred solely from the fact that the promise was not performed.
(c) As used in this section, “deception” has the meaning ascribed to it in AS 11.81.900 but does not include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance or “puffing” by statements unlikely to deceive reasonable persons in the group addressed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Linne v. State, 674 P.2d 1345 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983).
Linne v. State, 674 P.2d 1345 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “The charges alleged that Linne obtained or attempted to obtain money by deception in violation of AS 11.46.180. Superior Court Judge Thomas Schulz sentenced Linne to serve five years in jail, with four years suspended, for each count of second-degree theft; he sentenced Linne to…”
Wooley v. State, 221 P.3d 12 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “Finally, we note that in 1996, eight years after the legislature enacted AS 11.46.180(2)(6), the legislature enacted another recidivist statute that expressly codifies the Carison rule as the method for determining which offenders should be subjected to increased penalties for…”
Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255 (Alaska 2016). “continued) claim is civilly liable to a person adversely affected by the conduct, is guilty of theft by deception as defined in AS 11.46.180, and may be punished as provided by AS 11.”
DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp., 63 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2003). “The statute provides for punishment under AS 11.46.180, theft by deception. Second, the implications of our finding a § 250 petition violation has severe and serious financial implications under § 250(b).”
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2013). “Alaska Stat. Ann. §§ 11.46.180 (a), 11.81.”
State v. Saathoff, 29 P.3d 236 (Alaska 2001). “160; (3) the person commits theft by deception under AS 11.46.180; *238 (4) the person commits theft by receiving under AS 11.”
State v. Roberts, 711 P.2d 235 (Utah 1985). “Code § 13A-8-1(1) (1975); Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180 (c) (1962); Ark.”
ARCTEC Servs. v. Cummings, 295 P.3d 916 (Alaska 2013). “250 (1994) provided: A person who wilfully makes a false or misleading statement or representation for the purpose of obtaining or denying a benefit or payment under this chapter is guilty of theft by deception as defined in AS 11.46.180 and is punishable as provided in AS 11.”
Knix v. State, 922 P.2d 913 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996). “600(a)(2), and second-degree theft, AS 11.46.180(a) and AS 11.16.110(2)(B), raising various constitutional claims and statutory construction questions.”
State v. Bell, 421 P.3d 128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2018). “And with respect to Period I, the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the guidance provided here.”
State v. Rivers, 146 P.3d 999 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “Rivers's answers would be compelled or involuntary only if he was threatened with a penalty for asserting his privilege against self-incrimination and refusing to divulge potentially incriminating information.”
Wooley v. State, 157 P.3d 1064 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “However, approximately 18 months later, Wooley (now represented by a new attorney) filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted that his second-degree theft conviction was unlawful because his pri- or theft convictions were too old to qualify for…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180(2)(6) — 1 case
Wooley v. State, 221 P.3d 12 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “Finally, we note that in 1996, eight years after the legislature enacted AS 11.46.180(2)(6), the legislature enacted another recidivist statute that expressly codifies the Carison rule as the method for determining which offenders should be subjected to increased penalties for…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180(a) — 1 case
Knix v. State, 922 P.2d 913 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996). “600(a)(2), and second-degree theft, AS 11.46.180(a) and AS 11.16.110(2)(B), raising various constitutional claims and statutory construction questions.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180(a)(1) — 1 case
Elerson v. State, 732 P.2d 192 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Saathoff, 29 P.3d 236 (Alaska 2001). “160; (3) the person commits theft by deception under AS 11.46.180; *238 (4) the person commits theft by receiving under AS 11.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180(a)(6) — 2 cases
Wooley v. State, 221 P.3d 12 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “Finally, we note that in 1996, eight years after the legislature enacted AS 11.46.180(2)(6), the legislature enacted another recidivist statute that expressly codifies the Carison rule as the method for determining which offenders should be subjected to increased penalties for…”
Wooley v. State, 157 P.3d 1064 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “However, approximately 18 months later, Wooley (now represented by a new attorney) filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted that his second-degree theft conviction was unlawful because his pri- or theft convictions were too old to qualify for…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180(b) — 1 case
Linne v. State, 674 P.2d 1345 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “The charges alleged that Linne obtained or attempted to obtain money by deception in violation of AS 11.46.180. Superior Court Judge Thomas Schulz sentenced Linne to serve five years in jail, with four years suspended, for each count of second-degree theft; he sentenced Linne to…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.180(c) — 1 case
Linne v. State, 674 P.2d 1345 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “The charges alleged that Linne obtained or attempted to obtain money by deception in violation of AS 11.46.180. Superior Court Judge Thomas Schulz sentenced Linne to serve five years in jail, with four years suspended, for each count of second-degree theft; he sentenced Linne to…”
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.