Sec. 11.46.365. Vehicle theft in the second degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of vehicle theft in the second degree if, having no right to do so or a reasonable ground to believe the person has such a right,
(1) the person drives, tows away, or takes the propelled vehicle of another, other than a vehicle described in
AS 11.46.360(a)(1); or
(2) having custody of a propelled vehicle under a written agreement with the owner of the vehicle that includes an agreement to return the vehicle to the owner at a specified time, the person knowingly retains or withholds possession of the vehicle without the consent of the owner for so long a period beyond the time specified as to render the retention or possession of the vehicle an unreasonable deviation from the agreement.
(b) Vehicle theft in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1998–2019 · leading case:
Eppenger v. State, 966 P.2d 995 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
Eppenger v. State, 966 P.2d 995 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 16× “360 (vehicle theft in the first degree) and AS 11.46.365, (vehicle theft in the second degree), respectively.”
Dobberke v. State, 40 P.3d 1244 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002).
“However, the legislature also enacted AS 11.46.365(a)(2)-second-degree vehicle theft-which made it a misdemeanor to retain a vehicle beyond the time specified in a written agreement for so long a time that the retention became an unreasonable deviation from the agreement.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.365(a) — 1 case
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.365(a)(1) — 1 case
— Alaska Stat. § 11.46.365(a)(2) — 2 cases
Eppenger v. State, 966 P.2d 995 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
“360 (vehicle theft in the first degree) and AS 11.46.365, (vehicle theft in the second degree), respectively.”
Dobberke v. State, 40 P.3d 1244 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002).
“However, the legislature also enacted AS 11.46.365(a)(2)-second-degree vehicle theft-which made it a misdemeanor to retain a vehicle beyond the time specified in a written agreement for so long a time that the retention became an unreasonable deviation from the agreement.”
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.