(1) It is a defense to prosecution for theft that the actor:
(a) Was unaware that the property or service was that of another; or
(b) Acted under a claim of right to the property or service involved or a claim that
he or she had a right to acquire or dispose of it as he or she did; or
(c) Took property exposed for sale, intending to purchase and pay for it promptly,
or reasonably believing that the owner, if present, would have consented.
(2) It is no defense that theft was from the actor's spouse, except that misappropriation
of household and personal effects or other property normally accessible to both
spouses is theft only if it involves the property of the other spouse and only if it
occurs after the parties have ceased living together.
(3) It shall be prima facie evidence of intent to commit theft by deception when one
who has leased or rented the personal property of another fails to return the personal
property to its owner within four (4) days after the lease or rental agreement has
expired. It shall also be prima facie evidence of intent to commit theft by deception
when one presents to the owner identification which is false, fictitious or not current
as to name, address, place of employment or other items of identification for the
purpose of obtaining the lease or rental agreement. Nothing herein contained shall
relieve the owner from making demand for return of property so leased or rented.
Notice addressed and mailed to the lessee or renter at the address given at the time
of the making of the lease or rental agreement shall constitute proper demand.
Effective: July 15, 2024
History: Amended 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 174, sec. 45, effective July 15, 2024. -- Amended
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 267, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts
ch. 78, sec. 3, effective June 17, 1978. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 118 ,
effective January 1, 1975.
Legislative Research Commission Note. Although this section is included in Acts
1980, ch. 267, the proposed change was deleted by floor amendment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Day, 599 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. 1980).
Commonwealth v. Day, 599 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. 1980).
· cites it 4× “” This section is modified by the general defenses to theft and related offenses found in KRS 514.020. 1 The instructions given by the trial court employed only the “exercises control over” alternative language of KRS 514.”
Desai v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC, 381 F. Supp. 3d 774 (W.D. Ky. 2019).
· cites it 2× “35; see Ky. Rev. Stat. § 514.020(1)(b). Charter's final assertion, that "there was evidence that Plaintiffs knew their conduct was improper, because they lied about how they got the printers to make their actions appear legitimate," likewise barely warrants discussion.”
Terry v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 466 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 2× “" KRS 514.020. Appellant argues that objects buried with a body lose their character as property, as contemplated by the theft statute because KRS 525.”
Howard v. Commonwealth, 608 S.W.2d 62 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“KRS 514.020 provides that it is a defense to prosecution for theft that the defendant acted under a claim of right to the property or a claim that he had a right to dispose of it as he did.”
Hodges v. Commonwealth, 614 S.W.2d 702 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981).
“Appellant next urges that the lower court erred in failing to instruct the jury under KRS 514.020(l)(b) which provides a defense to theft if the actor “[ajcted under *705 a claim of right to the property or service involved or a claim that he had a right to acquire or dispose of…”
Hellard v. Commonwealth, 829 S.W.2d 427 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Under KRS 514.020(3), it is clear that the offense of theft by deception was completed when Hellard obtained the VCR with the forged rental agreement and that the forgery offense was encompassed within the theft by deception.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 587 S.W.2d 266 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
“KRS 514.020. In other words, since the commission of or the element of theft has been incorporated into the robbery statute then, Smith argues, so also should the defenses to theft be applicable.”
Katherine M. Waldridge v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “In discussing a conviction for theft by unlawful taking, our Supreme Court stated, when the Commonwealth provides evidence proving elements of theft, “and no statutory defense under KRS 514.020 such as a claim of right to the property .”
Herman Helm v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“The Trial Court further discarded Helm’s arguments based on KRS 514.020(3), explaining that the specific subsection only applies to the crime of theft by deception.”
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Thomas, 986 S.W.2d 901 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, Respondent Thomas was charged with six counts of Theft by Deception Over $300, KRS 514.020(l)(a), by, acting alone or in complicity, obtaining property or services from the Commonwealth of Kentucky of a value of $300 or more, by creating or reinforcing a false…”
Thomas v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 997 S.W.2d 462 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, Movant was charged with six counts of Theft by Deception Over $300, KRS 514.020(l)(a), by, acting alone or in complicity, obtaining property or services from the Commonwealth of Kentucky of a value of $300 or more, by creating or reinforcing a false impression,…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 514.020(1)(b) — 2 cases
Desai v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC, 381 F. Supp. 3d 774 (W.D. Ky. 2019).
“35; see Ky. Rev. Stat. § 514.020(1)(b). Charter's final assertion, that "there was evidence that Plaintiffs knew their conduct was improper, because they lied about how they got the printers to make their actions appear legitimate," likewise barely warrants discussion.”
Katherine M. Waldridge v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“In discussing a conviction for theft by unlawful taking, our Supreme Court stated, when the Commonwealth provides evidence proving elements of theft, “and no statutory defense under KRS 514.020 such as a claim of right to the property .”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 514.020(3) — 2 cases
Hellard v. Commonwealth, 829 S.W.2d 427 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“Under KRS 514.020(3), it is clear that the offense of theft by deception was completed when Hellard obtained the VCR with the forged rental agreement and that the forgery offense was encompassed within the theft by deception.”
Herman Helm v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“The Trial Court further discarded Helm’s arguments based on KRS 514.020(3), explaining that the specific subsection only applies to the crime of theft by deception.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 514.020(l)(a) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Day, 599 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. 1980).
“” This section is modified by the general defenses to theft and related offenses found in KRS 514.020. 1 The instructions given by the trial court employed only the “exercises control over” alternative language of KRS 514.”
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Thomas, 986 S.W.2d 901 (Ky. 1999).
“Specifically, Respondent Thomas was charged with six counts of Theft by Deception Over $300, KRS 514.020(l)(a), by, acting alone or in complicity, obtaining property or services from the Commonwealth of Kentucky of a value of $300 or more, by creating or reinforcing a false…”
Thomas v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 997 S.W.2d 462 (Ky. 1999).
“Specifically, Movant was charged with six counts of Theft by Deception Over $300, KRS 514.020(l)(a), by, acting alone or in complicity, obtaining property or services from the Commonwealth of Kentucky of a value of $300 or more, by creating or reinforcing a false impression,…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 514.020(l)(b) — 1 case
Hodges v. Commonwealth, 614 S.W.2d 702 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981).
“Appellant next urges that the lower court erred in failing to instruct the jury under KRS 514.020(l)(b) which provides a defense to theft if the actor “[ajcted under *705 a claim of right to the property or service involved or a claim that he had a right to acquire or dispose of…”
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.