Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 28
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2026)

Grading of theft offenses; aggregation allowed; when

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Theft constitutes a Class IIA felony when the value of the thing involved is five thousand dollars or more.

(2) Theft constitutes a Class IV felony when the value of the thing involved is one thousand five hundred dollars or more but less than five thousand dollars.

(3) Theft constitutes a Class I misdemeanor when the value of the thing involved is more than five hundred dollars but less than one thousand five hundred dollars.

(4) Theft constitutes a Class II misdemeanor when the value of the thing involved is five hundred dollars or less.

(5) For any second or subsequent conviction under subsection (3) of this section, any person so offending shall be guilty of a Class IV felony.

(6) For any second conviction under subsection (4) of this section, any person so offending shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor, and for any third or subsequent conviction under subsection (4) of this section, the person so offending shall be guilty of a Class IV felony.

(7) For a prior conviction to be used to enhance the penalty under subsection (5) or (6) of this section, the prior conviction must have occurred no more than ten years prior to the date of commission of the current offense.

(8) Amounts taken pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct from one or more persons may be aggregated in the indictment or information in determining the classification of the offense, except that amounts may not be aggregated into more than one offense.

(9) In any prosecution for theft under sections 28-509 to 28-518, value shall be an essential element of the offense that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Duncan, 882 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Duncan, 882 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 33× “Although Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (8) (Cum. Supp. 2014) requires some value to be proved as an element of a theft offense, the statutory language does not require proof of a particu- lar threshold value.”
State v. Gartner, 638 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 20× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 24× “We begin by setting forth the relevant provisions of § 28-518, which grades theft offenses based on the value of stolen prop- erty and imposes additional requirements.”
State v. Garza, 487 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1992). · cites it 18× “Alice Garza appeals from her conviction in a bench trial in the district court for Hall County on the charge of felony shoplifting, theft of movable property with a value more than $300, but less than $1,000, see Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-518 (Reissue 1989) (grades of theft offenses),…”
State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 12× “2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Ybarra, 609 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 20× “See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-518 (Reissue 1995). Because the only evidence of the value of the merchandise taken was the price at which the merchandise was offered for sale, the trial court, following what it understood the holding of State v.”
State v. Schaaf, 449 N.W.2d 762 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 10× “” Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (1) (Reissue 1985), “[t]heft constitutes a Class III felony when the value of the thing involved is over one thousand dollars, ” and is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of 20 years, a fine of up to $25,000, or both such imprisonment…”
State v. Howell, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 842 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Beyer, 352 N.W.2d 168 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 20× “Section 28-518 (Cum.Supp.1982) rates the theft offenses in four categories based on "the value of the thing involved": (1) over $1000 —Class III felony; (2) $300 but not more than $1000—Class IV felony; (3) more than $100 but less than $300—Class I misdemeanor; and (4) $100 or…”
State v. Copple, 401 N.W.2d 141 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 6× “Of further interest is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (Reissue 1985), which defines the grade of various offenses classified as theft, especially subsection (1) of § 28-518: “Theft constitutes a Class III felony when the value of the thing involved is over one thousand dollars.”
In Re Interest of Shea B., 532 N.W.2d 52 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 9× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (1) (Cum. Supp. 1994).”
State v. Mohr, 632 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 18× “The Ybarra court recognized that value had become an essential element of the crime of theft as a result of legislative amendment to § 28-518. Therefore, we held that the fact finder had to determine whether value was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in theft cases.”
Show all 106 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(1) — 12 cases
State v. Schaaf, 449 N.W.2d 762 (Neb. 1989). “” Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (1) (Reissue 1985), “[t]heft constitutes a Class III felony when the value of the thing involved is over one thousand dollars, ” and is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of 20 years, a fine of up to $25,000, or both such imprisonment…”
State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020). “2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Roche, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 539 (Neb. 1994).
State v. Redding, 331 N.W.2d 811 (Neb. 1983).
State v. Wisinski, 680 N.W.2d 205 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(2) — 17 cases
State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2023). “We begin by setting forth the relevant provisions of § 28-518, which grades theft offenses based on the value of stolen prop- erty and imposes additional requirements.”
State v. Gartner, 638 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 2002). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Garza, 487 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1992). “Alice Garza appeals from her conviction in a bench trial in the district court for Hall County on the charge of felony shoplifting, theft of movable property with a value more than $300, but less than $1,000, see Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-518 (Reissue 1989) (grades of theft offenses),…”
State v. Walker, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 292 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020). “2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(3) — 10 cases
State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2023). “We begin by setting forth the relevant provisions of § 28-518, which grades theft offenses based on the value of stolen prop- erty and imposes additional requirements.”
State v. Garza, 487 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1992). “Alice Garza appeals from her conviction in a bench trial in the district court for Hall County on the charge of felony shoplifting, theft of movable property with a value more than $300, but less than $1,000, see Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-518 (Reissue 1989) (grades of theft offenses),…”
State v. Howell, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 842 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020). “2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Mohr, 632 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001). “The Ybarra court recognized that value had become an essential element of the crime of theft as a result of legislative amendment to § 28-518. Therefore, we held that the fact finder had to determine whether value was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in theft cases.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(4) — 18 cases
State v. Gartner, 638 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 2002). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Garza, 487 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1992). “Alice Garza appeals from her conviction in a bench trial in the district court for Hall County on the charge of felony shoplifting, theft of movable property with a value more than $300, but less than $1,000, see Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-518 (Reissue 1989) (grades of theft offenses),…”
State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2023). “We begin by setting forth the relevant provisions of § 28-518, which grades theft offenses based on the value of stolen prop- erty and imposes additional requirements.”
State v. Howell, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 842 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020). “2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(5) — 3 cases
State v. Rubek, 653 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Long, 539 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Bret, 318 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2025).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(6) — 9 cases
State v. Orduna, 550 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 1996).
State v. Long, 539 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Bell, 493 N.W.2d 339 (Neb. 1992).
State v. Mohr, 632 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001). “The Ybarra court recognized that value had become an essential element of the crime of theft as a result of legislative amendment to § 28-518. Therefore, we held that the fact finder had to determine whether value was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in theft cases.”
State v. Sack, 24 Neb. Ct. App. 721 (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(7) — 6 cases
State v. Duncan, 882 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 2016). “Although Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (8) (Cum. Supp. 2014) requires some value to be proved as an element of a theft offense, the statutory language does not require proof of a particu- lar threshold value.”
State v. Miner, 733 N.W.2d 891 (Neb. 2007).
State v. Sierra, 305 Neb. 249 (Neb. 2020).
State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2023). “We begin by setting forth the relevant provisions of § 28-518, which grades theft offenses based on the value of stolen prop- erty and imposes additional requirements.”
State v. Warner (Neb. 2015).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(8) — 20 cases
State v. Gartner, 638 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 2002). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53 (Neb. 2023). “We begin by setting forth the relevant provisions of § 28-518, which grades theft offenses based on the value of stolen prop- erty and imposes additional requirements.”
State v. Duncan, 882 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 2016). “Although Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (8) (Cum. Supp. 2014) requires some value to be proved as an element of a theft offense, the statutory language does not require proof of a particu- lar threshold value.”
State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020). “2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
In Re Interest of Shea B., 532 N.W.2d 52 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518 (1) (Cum. Supp. 1994).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(9) — 4 cases
State v. Payne (Neb. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Bret, 318 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2025).
State v. Bonar (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Rodriguez-Padron (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
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.