Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 856 (2026)

Theft, receiving stolen property no defense; receiving stolen property, theft no defense; conviction of both offenses

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In any prosecution for theft or theft of a firearm, it is no defense that the accused is in fact guilty of receiving stolen property or receiving a stolen firearm. A person may be convicted of the crime which the person has in fact committed.

(b) In any prosecution for receiving stolen property or receiving a stolen firearm, it is no defense that the accused is in fact guilty of theft or theft of a firearm. A person may be convicted of the crime which the person has in fact committed.

(c) A person may not be convicted of both theft and receiving stolen property, or both theft of a firearm and receiving a stolen firearm, with regard to property appropriated in the same transaction or series of transactions. A person may be charged with the crime the person seems most likely to have committed and may be convicted as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.

11 Del. C. 1953, § 856; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 260, §§ 1-3;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2014–2015 · leading case: Gumaneh v. State (Del. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gumaneh v. State (Del. 2015). · cites it 3× “(4) In his opening brief on appeal, Gumaneh argues that, under 11 Del. C. § 856, a defendant cannot be convicted of receiving stolen property and of stealing the same property that he already was determined to have received.”

Zimmerman v. State (Del. 2014). “Zimmerman also argued that he could not be convicted of both Theft of property valuing $1500 or more and Receiving Stolen Property under 11 Del. C. § 856. Zimmerman now appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of that motion.”

— 11 Del. C. § 856(c) — 1 case

Gumaneh v. State (Del. 2015). “(4) In his opening brief on appeal, Gumaneh argues that, under 11 Del. C. § 856, a defendant cannot be convicted of receiving stolen property and of stealing the same property that he already was determined to have received.”

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.