Can prosecutors choose between general and specific theft statutes when charging defendants? State v. Stevens Explained

In State v. Stevens, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether prosecutors must use specific theft statutes when they exist, or whether they may proceed under general theft provisions. The case also clarified how statutory presumptions operate in theft by receiving stolen property cases.

Background and Facts

Stevens rented a Mercedes in Nevada using someone else’s credit card, claiming he needed the vehicle for two days to visit a relative. He failed to return the vehicle as agreed and was later arrested in Utah during a high-speed chase. When recovered, the rental vehicle was extensively damaged throughout its interior and exterior, with repair costs exceeding the vehicle’s value. Stevens was also found in possession of property stolen from recent burglaries in Cedar City and St. George.

Key Legal Issues

Stevens argued the State should have charged him under Utah Code section 76-6-410.5, the specific theft of rental vehicle statute, which requires proof that a renter failed to return a vehicle within 72 hours without good cause. Instead, the State charged him under section 76-6-408, the general theft by receiving stolen property statute. Stevens also challenged the trial court’s reliance on the statutory presumption that possession of other stolen property establishes knowledge that property is stolen.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed Stevens’s conviction, holding that prosecutorial discretion allows the State to choose between applicable statutes. The court explained that theft by receiving stolen property and theft of rental vehicle are distinct offenses with different elements, and prosecutors need not use the most specific available statute. The court also rejected Stevens’s challenge to the statutory presumption, finding that possession of other stolen property supports the inference of knowledge regardless of how the defendant came to possess the charged property.

Practice Implications

This decision confirms that Utah prosecutors have broad discretion in charging decisions and may proceed under general statutes even when specific ones exist. Defense attorneys challenging sufficiency of evidence must focus on the elements of the actual charged offense rather than arguing about alternative charging theories. The ruling also reinforces that statutory presumptions in theft cases apply broadly to possession of stolen property, regardless of the specific manner in which defendants came to possess the items.