## Facts

- Jamestown West End Hide and Fur Company, a junk dealer, bought several large rolls of scrap copper wire from Otter Tail Power Company and stored them in its open yard.
- In early December 1980, a partner discovered several rolls missing.
- The partner learned another junk dealer, Porter Brothers, had bought a similar roll of wire on December 4, 1980, from Frank Kaufman.
- At trial, the partner identified the wire purchased from Kaufman as the same wire missing from Hide and Fur’s yard.
- During the investigation, Kaufman told a deputy sheriff he found the wire “out by Windsor.”
- Kaufman was charged under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-04 (theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake) for disposing of property of another, knowing it was lost or mislaid, and failing to take reasonable measures to restore it with intent to deprive the owner.
- After a bench trial in Stutsman County Court of Increased Jurisdiction, Kaufman was found guilty and sentenced to six months in jail with 2.5 months suspended, a $100 fine, and $79.75 restitution.

## Issues

1. Whether property initially stolen and later abandoned can qualify as “lost” property for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-04.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the statutory elements, including knowledge and intent to deprive.
3. Whether the sentencing court relied on impermissible factors requiring vacation or modification of the sentence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that property stolen and later abandoned may be treated as “lost” within N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-04 when a subsequent finder, knowing it belongs to another, disposes of it and fails to take reasonable measures to restore it.
- The court concluded the evidence supported findings that the wire belonged to another, Kaufman disposed of it by selling it, he knew or had reason to know it was not his, and he intended to deprive the owner while failing to pursue return.
- The court found the sentence was within statutory limits and the record did not show reliance on constitutionally impermissible considerations or materially false information.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-04, the operative inquiry centers on the finder’s knowledge, intent, and failure to take reasonable measures to restore property to the person entitled to it.
- Property separated from the owner’s possession may be “lost” for purposes of the statute even if the separation began with a theft, if a later possessor finds it under circumstances indicating it belongs to another and nonetheless appropriates it.
- On appellate review of sufficiency in a bench trial, the court will not reweigh factfinding where competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings.
- A sentence within statutory limits will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion or reliance on impermissible considerations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Kaufman’s conviction for theft of lost or mislaid property, holding that stolen property later abandoned can constitute “lost” property under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-04 when the finder knowingly disposes of it without taking reasonable steps to return it, and it affirmed a lawful sentence not based on improper factors.


State v. Kaufman, 310 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1981)