(1) It is no defense to a charge of theft of property that the offender has an interest therein, when the owner also has an interest to which the offender is not entitled.
(2)  Where the property involved is that of the offender’s spouse, no prosecution for theft may be maintained unless the parties were not living together as man and wife and were living in separate abodes at the time of the alleged theft.
Have a question? Click here to chat with a criminal defense lawyer and protect your rights.

Terms Used In Idaho Code 18-2406

  • Complaint: A written statement by the plaintiff stating the wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.
  • Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
  • Embezzlement: In most states, embezzlement is defined as theft/larceny of assets (money or property) by a person in a position of trust or responsibility over those assets. Embezzlement typically occurs in the employment and corporate settings. Source: OCC
  • Indictment: The formal charge issued by a grand jury stating that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial; it is used primarily for felonies.
  • person: includes a corporation as well as a natural person;
Idaho Code 73-114
  • Property: includes both real and personal property. See Idaho Code 73-114
  • (3)  In any prosecution for theft committed by trespassory taking or the offense previously known as embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated openly and avowedly, and under a claim of right made in good faith. It is not a defense to a theft committed by such conduct that the accused intended to restore the property taken, but may be considered by the court to mitigate punishment if the property is voluntarily and actually restored (or tendered) prior to the filing of any complaint or indictment relating thereto, and this provision does not excuse the unlawful retention of the property of another to offset or pay demands held against such other person.
    (4)  In any prosecution for theft by extortion committed by instilling in the victim a fear that he or another person would be charged with a crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the threatened charge to be true and that his sole purpose was to compel or induce the victim to take reasonable action to make good the wrong which was the subject of such threatened charge.
    (5)  It is no defense to a prosecution for theft under a provision of this chapter that the defendant, by reason of the same conduct, also committed an act specified as a crime in another chapter of title 18, or another title of the Idaho Code.