History:
L. 1998, ch. 179, § 1; L. 2000, ch. 181, § 8; L. 2005, ch. 131, § 2; L. 2006, ch. 149, § 6; L. 2010, ch. 88, § 2; Repealed, L. 2011, ch. 30, § 288; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Acquittal of identity theft affirmed where unauthorized immigrant bought false identification papers in order to work in U.S. City of Liberal v. Vargas, 28 Kan. App. 2d 867, 24 P.3d 155 (2001).
2. Sufficient evidence defendant obtained identifying information to defraud for economic benefit. State v. Oswald, 36 Kan. App. 2d 144, 150, 137 P.3d 1066 (2006).
3. Conviction hereunder; identity theft not considered a single act but a continuing course of criminal conduct. State v. Meza, 38 Kan. App. 2d 245, 250, 251, 165 P.3d 298 (2007).
4. An offense is committed when every statutory element occurs. State v. Green, 38 Kan. App. 2d 781, 785, 786, 172 P.3d 1213 (2007).
5. Cited; K.S.A. 21-4018 does not require economic loss to victim, only proof of intent to defraud. State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 196, 203, 204, 190 P.3d 995 (2008).
State v. Valdiviezo-Martinez, 486 P.3d 1256 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 7דsocial security number or card"); K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 21-4018 ("[a] Identity theft is .”
State v. Meza, 165 P.3d 298 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7דSince the intent of the legislature governs, we turn to the legislative history of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4018. Prior to the enactment of the statute in 1998, hearings were held by the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs.”
City of Liberal v. Vargas, 24 P.3d 155 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8דWithout state or federal cases to guide our inquiry, we turn to the legislative history of K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 21-4018. The crime of identity theft was created by the 1998 Kansas Legislature.”
State v. Oswald, 137 P.3d 1066 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8דin violation of K.S.A. 21-4018.” At the preliminary hearing, the State relied on Oswald’s opening of the Nextel account as the basis for the identity theft charge.”
State v. Hardesty, 213 P.3d 745 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12דHardesty first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of identity theft, arguing K.S.A. 21-4018 applies only when the defendant possesses another person’s identification documents.”
State v. Green, 172 P.3d 1213 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5ד, K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4018.) Identity theft is “knowingly and with intent to defraud for economic benefit, obtaining, possessing, transferring, using or attempting to obtain, possess, transfer or use, one or more identification documents or personal identification number of…”
State v. Ochoa-Lara, 362 P.3d 606 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2דEffective July 1, 2011, K.S.A. 21-4018 was repealed and replaced by K.”
State v. Prieto-Lozoya, 2021 NMCA 019 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). “at 156 (quoting Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4018 (repealed July 1, 2011)), and, consequently, the question before that court was whether securing employment qualified as an “economic benefit.”
State v. Johnson, 190 P.3d 995 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2דJohnson was convicted of identity theft in violation of K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 21-4018 based upon his possession of counterfeit checks made payable to John Dale and a manufactured identification card in the same name.”
State v. Williams, 244 P.3d 667 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 5ד) We agree with the parties that K.S.A. 21-4018, which criminalizes identity theft and identity fraud, expresses the Kansas offense that is comparable to the Washington offense for which Williams was convicted and sentenced in 2001 and 2002.”
State v. Jackson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3ד2020 Supp. 21-6810(d)(8)—previously K.S.A. 21-4710(d)(8)—states: "Prior convictions of a crime defined by a statute that has since been repealed shall be scored using the classification assigned at the time of such conviction.”
State v. Bland, 103 P.3d 492 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “21-4018(a) defines identify theft as “knowingly and with intent to defraud for economic benefit, obtaining, possessing, transferring, using or attempting to obtain, possess, transfer or use, one or more identification documents or personal identification number[s] of another…”
State v. Valdiviezo-Martinez, 486 P.3d 1256 (Kan. 2021). “social security number or card"); K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 21-4018 ("[a] Identity theft is .”
State v. Meza, 165 P.3d 298 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “Since the intent of the legislature governs, we turn to the legislative history of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4018. Prior to the enactment of the statute in 1998, hearings were held by the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs.”
State v. Oswald, 137 P.3d 1066 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “in violation of K.S.A. 21-4018.” At the preliminary hearing, the State relied on Oswald’s opening of the Nextel account as the basis for the identity theft charge.”
State v. Green, 172 P.3d 1213 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “, K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4018.) Identity theft is “knowingly and with intent to defraud for economic benefit, obtaining, possessing, transferring, using or attempting to obtain, possess, transfer or use, one or more identification documents or personal identification number of…”
State v. Hardesty, 213 P.3d 745 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Hardesty first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of identity theft, arguing K.S.A. 21-4018 applies only when the defendant possesses another person’s identification documents.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4018(c) — 2 cases
State v. Jackson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “2020 Supp. 21-6810(d)(8)—previously K.S.A. 21-4710(d)(8)—states: "Prior convictions of a crime defined by a statute that has since been repealed shall be scored using the classification assigned at the time of such conviction.”
State v. Hardesty, 213 P.3d 745 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Hardesty first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of identity theft, arguing K.S.A. 21-4018 applies only when the defendant possesses another person’s identification documents.”
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.