explaining that commission had considered treating "casual" receivers the same as other types of thieves and "professional" receivers more harshly
How later courts described this case
- explaining that commission had considered treating "casual" receivers the same as other types of thieves and "professional" receivers more harshly
- relying on same legislative history in interpreting term “substantially’ in adopted version of the law
- explaining that concept of “substantial distance” informs meaning of “intent to interfere substantially’
- explaining that those concepts inform the meaning of the intent to “substantially interfere”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PETERSON, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I, too, concur in the majority opinion in its holding that the trial court did not err in convicting and sentencing defendant separately for kidnapping, rape, and sodomy. I join with Justice Tongue in part II of his dissent. I do not agree with part I of his dissent.