A person commits theft if he obtains property of another by deception. A person deceives if he intentionally:
(1) Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention, or other state of mind; but deception as to a person's intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; or
(2) Prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or
(3) Fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship; or
(4) Uses a credit card, charge plate, or any other instrument which purports to evidence an undertaking to pay for property or services delivered or rendered to or upon the order of a designated person or bearer (a) where such instrument has been stolen, forged, revoked, or canceled, or where for any other reason its use by the actor is unauthorized, or (b) where the actor does not have the intention and ability to meet all obligations to the issuer arising out of his use of the instrument.
The word deceive does not include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case:
State v. Fleming, 388 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. 1986).
State v. Fleming, 388 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 23× “Fleming appeals his convictions in a jury trial for three counts of theft, namely, obtaining property of another by deception in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512 (Reissue 1985). We affirm the judgment of the district court for Dodge County.”
State v. Redding, 331 N.W.2d 811 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 12× “The defendant, Lester Redding, following a jury trial, was convicted of the offense of attempted theft by deception of property of the value of more than $1,000, a violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 28-512 et seq. (Reissue 1979), and a Class IV felony.”
State v. Scott, 403 N.W.2d 351 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 15× “Defendant-appellant, VerDon Scott, was charged by information in Hitchcock County, Nebraska, and convicted of two counts of theft in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512 (2) (Reissue 1985).”
State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 4× “We first reject her challenge to a supplemental jury instruction and an amended verdict form permitting a verdict 1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-512 and 28-518(2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Loschen, 376 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 5× “1985) more accurately describes his conduct than does the statute under which he was charged, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512 (Reissue 1979), and, thus, he could not be prosecuted under the latter statute.”
State v. Sailors, 352 N.W.2d 860 (Neb. 1984).
· cites it 11× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-512 (1) (Reissue 1979).”
State v. Agee, 741 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The district court’s order denying Agee’s motion is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.”
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009).
“, Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-512 , 28-518, 28-631 (1995).”
State v. Schaaf, 449 N.W.2d 762 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 4× “2d 729 (1983) (theft by deception, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-512 (Reissue 1985)). Although this court has not expressly stated that time is not an essential element of theft, other courts, construing theft statutes substantially similar to § 28-511, have held that time is not an…”
State v. Roche, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 539 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 5× “, doing business as The Copy Center, was charged with two counts of theft by deception under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512 (Reissue 1989) for selling two copiers with the meters rolled back, thereby deceiving the buyers with regard to the value of the machines.”
State v. Walker, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 292 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-512 and 28-518 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Pierce, 283 N.W.2d 6 (Neb. 1979).
· cites it 4× “The theories which they have used are either that a defendant should receive two separate and independent warnings before being charged as an habitual criminal or that the defendant should have two separate opportunities for the beneficent influence of penal incarceration before…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512(1) — 7 cases
State v. Sailors, 352 N.W.2d 860 (Neb. 1984).
“See Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-512 (1) (Reissue 1979).”
State v. Fleming, 388 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. 1986).
“Fleming appeals his convictions in a jury trial for three counts of theft, namely, obtaining property of another by deception in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512 (Reissue 1985). We affirm the judgment of the district court for Dodge County.”
State v. Scott, 403 N.W.2d 351 (Neb. 1987).
“Defendant-appellant, VerDon Scott, was charged by information in Hitchcock County, Nebraska, and convicted of two counts of theft in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512 (2) (Reissue 1985).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512(2) — 1 case
State v. Scott, 403 N.W.2d 351 (Neb. 1987).
“Defendant-appellant, VerDon Scott, was charged by information in Hitchcock County, Nebraska, and convicted of two counts of theft in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-512 (2) (Reissue 1985).”
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.