K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3701 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3701.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3701; L. 1972, ch. 116, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 120, § 29; L. 1984, ch. 119, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 113, § 2; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 39; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 64; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 26; L. 2001, ch. 208, § 5; L. 2002, ch. 123, § 2; L. 2004, ch. 175, § 1; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 384 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Micheaux, 747 P.2d 784 (Kan. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Micheaux, 747 P.2d 784 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 20× “39-720 and K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-3701). The trial judge refused to follow the State’s recommendation that defendant be placed on probation and imposed sentence.”
State v. Finch, 573 P.2d 1048 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 20× “: This is a direct appeal from a conviction of theft by deception (K.S.A. 21-3701[ b ].) The basic issue presented is essentially this: In order to prove a defendant guilty of theft by deception under 21-3701( b ), must the state prove that the intended victim was actually…”
State v. Lashley, 664 P.2d 1358 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 9× “Defendant claims that felony theft (K.S.A. 21-3701) is not a forcible felony and therefore is not an underlying felony required for a charge under the felony murder rule.”
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003). · cites it 2× “Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-3701 (b)(2), 21-4704(a) (1995).”
State v. Blockman, 881 P.2d 561 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 20× “Trial Court The trial court instructed the jury on theft (K.S.A. 21-3701[a]), but denied the defendant’s request for an instruction on theft by threat (K.”
State v. Martinez, 874 P.2d 617 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 15× “Beatrice Martinez was charged with theft of a vehicle under K.S.A. 21-3701. A car stolen from a Wichita (Sedgwick County) parking lot was discovered on fire the next day in Harvey County.”
State v. Kunellis, 78 P.3d 776 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 5× “21-3436(a)(8) includes felony theft under subsection (a) or (c) of K.S.A. 21-3701 as an inherently dangerous felony.”
State v. Donaldson, 112 P.3d 99 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 8× “21-3436(a) states that "[a]ny of the following felonies shall be deemed an inherently dangerous felony," and the list includes under subsection (8) "felony theft under subsection (a) or (c) of K.S.A. 21-3701 and amendments thereto," without further limitation.”
State v. Saylor, 618 P.2d 1166 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 12× “: This is a direct appeal from a conviction of theft by deception (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 21-3701[b]). The Court of Appeals in a published opinion, State v.”
State v. Rios, 792 P.2d 1065 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 14× “21-3711); and one count each of theft by deception (K.S.A. 21-3701[b]). The State has filed a cross-appeal challenging the jury instruction permitting the jury to merge multiple counts into single counts under the single larceny doctrine.”
State v. Getz, 830 P.2d 5 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 10× “*566 The Court of Appeals noted that the theft statute, K.S.A. 21-3701, contains the common-law forms of larceny.”
Candi Ryder v. The City of Topeka & Michael Meyer, 814 F.2d 1412 (10th Cir. 1987). · cites it 5× “The Kansas Supreme Court held that: K.S.A. 21-3701 incorporates two sections that are, when viewed in the abstract, offenses that are inherently dangerous to human life: (1) theft by obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property — K.”
Show all 384 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(3) — 1 case
State v. Coffman, 925 P.2d 419 (Kan. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(6) — 1 case
State v. Saylor, 618 P.2d 1166 (Kan. 1980). “: This is a direct appeal from a conviction of theft by deception (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 21-3701[b]). The Court of Appeals in a published opinion, State v.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(a) — 55 cases
State v. Kunellis, 78 P.3d 776 (Kan. 2003). “21-3436(a)(8) includes felony theft under subsection (a) or (c) of K.S.A. 21-3701 as an inherently dangerous felony.”
State v. Getz, 830 P.2d 5 (Kan. 1992). “*566 The Court of Appeals noted that the theft statute, K.S.A. 21-3701, contains the common-law forms of larceny.”
State v. Martinez, 874 P.2d 617 (Kan. 1994). “Beatrice Martinez was charged with theft of a vehicle under K.S.A. 21-3701. A car stolen from a Wichita (Sedgwick County) parking lot was discovered on fire the next day in Harvey County.”
State v. Donaldson, 112 P.3d 99 (Kan. 2005). “21-3436(a) states that "[a]ny of the following felonies shall be deemed an inherently dangerous felony," and the list includes under subsection (8) "felony theft under subsection (a) or (c) of K.S.A. 21-3701 and amendments thereto," without further limitation.”
State v. Whorton, 589 P.2d 610 (Kan. 1979).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(a)(1) — 19 cases
State v. McKissack, 156 P.3d 1249 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Donaldson, 112 P.3d 99 (Kan. 2005). “21-3436(a) states that "[a]ny of the following felonies shall be deemed an inherently dangerous felony," and the list includes under subsection (8) "felony theft under subsection (a) or (c) of K.S.A. 21-3701 and amendments thereto," without further limitation.”
State v. Hargrove, 293 P.3d 787 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Longoria, 343 P.3d 1128 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Wright, 911 P.2d 166 (Kan. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(a)(2) — 12 cases
State v. Laborde, 360 P.3d 1080 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Smith, 993 P.2d 1213 (Kan. 1999).
State v. Donaldson, 112 P.3d 99 (Kan. 2005). “21-3436(a) states that "[a]ny of the following felonies shall be deemed an inherently dangerous felony," and the list includes under subsection (8) "felony theft under subsection (a) or (c) of K.S.A. 21-3701 and amendments thereto," without further limitation.”
State v. Schroeder, 105 P.3d 1237 (Kan. 2005).
State v. Fritz, 933 P.2d 126 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(a)(3) — 1 case
State v. Sandifer, 17 P.3d 921 (Kan. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(a)(4) — 5 cases
State v. McCammon, 250 P.3d 838 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Barnes, 251 P.3d 96 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Phillips, 253 P.3d 372 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Watson, 186 P.3d 812 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Seamster (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(a)(l) — 18 cases
State v. Ivory, 41 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2002).
State v. Watson, 186 P.3d 812 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Plummer, 283 P.3d 202 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Charles, 318 P.3d 997 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Hood, 300 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2013).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(a)(l)(b)(2) — 1 case
State v. Drayton, 175 P.3d 861 (Kan. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(b) — 24 cases
State v. Fritz, 933 P.2d 126 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Rios, 792 P.2d 1065 (Kan. 1990). “21-3711); and one count each of theft by deception (K.S.A. 21-3701[b]). The State has filed a cross-appeal challenging the jury instruction permitting the jury to merge multiple counts into single counts under the single larceny doctrine.”
State v. Finch, 573 P.2d 1048 (Kan. 1978). “: This is a direct appeal from a conviction of theft by deception (K.S.A. 21-3701[ b ].) The basic issue presented is essentially this: In order to prove a defendant guilty of theft by deception under 21-3701( b ), must the state prove that the intended victim was actually…”
State v. Ellmaker, 221 P.3d 1105 (Kan. 2009).
State v. Jones, 47 P.3d 783 (Kan. 2002).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(b)(2) — 1 case
State v. Huff, 336 P.3d 397 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(b)(3) — 6 cases
State v. Charles, 318 P.3d 997 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Mayes, 98 P.3d 294 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Bateson, 970 P.2d 1000 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Jenkins, 284 P.3d 1037 (Kan. 2012).
Wright v. Kansas State Bd. of Educ., 268 P.3d 1231 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(b)(4) — 1 case
State v. Hood, 300 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2013).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(b)(5) — 3 cases
State v. Charles, 318 P.3d 997 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Jenkins, 284 P.3d 1037 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Plummer, 251 P.3d 102 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(b)(6) — 1 case
State v. Jenkins, 284 P.3d 1037 (Kan. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(c) — 8 cases
State v. Blockman, 881 P.2d 561 (Kan. 1994). “Trial Court The trial court instructed the jury on theft (K.S.A. 21-3701[a]), but denied the defendant’s request for an instruction on theft by threat (K.”
United States v. Robert Earl Fritz, 580 F.2d 370 (10th Cir. 1978).
Candi Ryder v. The City of Topeka & Michael Meyer, 814 F.2d 1412 (10th Cir. 1987). “The Kansas Supreme Court held that: K.S.A. 21-3701 incorporates two sections that are, when viewed in the abstract, offenses that are inherently dangerous to human life: (1) theft by obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property — K.”
State v. Lashley, 664 P.2d 1358 (Kan. 1983). “Defendant claims that felony theft (K.S.A. 21-3701) is not a forcible felony and therefore is not an underlying felony required for a charge under the felony murder rule.”
State v. Holt, 917 P.2d 1332 (Kan. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(d) — 15 cases
State v. Martinez, 874 P.2d 617 (Kan. 1994). “Beatrice Martinez was charged with theft of a vehicle under K.S.A. 21-3701. A car stolen from a Wichita (Sedgwick County) parking lot was discovered on fire the next day in Harvey County.”
State v. Bowman, 850 P.2d 236 (Kan. 1993).
State v. Rinck, 888 P.2d 845 (Kan. 1995).
State v. Getz, 830 P.2d 5 (Kan. 1992). “*566 The Court of Appeals noted that the theft statute, K.S.A. 21-3701, contains the common-law forms of larceny.”
State v. Logan & Cromwell, 656 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1983).
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(fc) — 1 case
State v. Finch, 573 P.2d 1048 (Kan. 1978). “: This is a direct appeal from a conviction of theft by deception (K.S.A. 21-3701[ b ].) The basic issue presented is essentially this: In order to prove a defendant guilty of theft by deception under 21-3701( b ), must the state prove that the intended victim was actually…”
— K.S.A. § 21-3701(h) — 1 case
State v. Finch, 573 P.2d 1048 (Kan. 1978). “: This is a direct appeal from a conviction of theft by deception (K.S.A. 21-3701[ b ].) The basic issue presented is essentially this: In order to prove a defendant guilty of theft by deception under 21-3701( b ), must the state prove that the intended victim was actually…”
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.