## Facts

- A 16-year-old juvenile and his 14-year-old sister entered a department store without money.
- Store security observed the juvenile hand a baseball cap to his sister; the sister later picked up additional clothing items.
- The siblings stood apart and looked around; the sister concealed merchandise under her sweatshirt.
- The sister left the store without paying; the juvenile remained inside.
- Security stopped the sister outside, recovered the items, and brought both siblings to the security office; police were called.
- The State’s evidence included the juvenile’s statement that they were shoplifting to obtain school clothes.
- At the fact-finding hearing, the juvenile and his sister testified she acted alone and that he told her not to steal.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 9A.56.020(1) requires proof of an intent to permanently deprive, or only an intent to deprive.
2. Whether the charging information was constitutionally defective for failing to allege intent to permanently deprive.
3. Whether the trial court’s findings were insufficient because they did not expressly find intent to permanently deprive.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- The court held RCW 9A.56.020(1) does not include a common-law requirement of intent to permanently deprive.
- Because intent to permanently deprive is not an element, the information alleging intent to deprive was constitutionally adequate.
- The trial court’s finding that the juvenile intended to deprive the store of its property was sufficient to support the adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- When the Legislature defines a crime’s elements by statute, those statutory elements control even if they differ from earlier common-law formulations.
- Under RCW 9A.56.020(1), theft requires proof that the defendant wrongfully obtained or exerted unauthorized control over property with intent to deprive the owner; permanence is not required.
- Legislative history may confirm that omitted language (such as “permanently”) was intentionally removed and should not be read back into the statute.
- A charging document is sufficient if it alleges all essential statutory elements; a conviction is supported if the fact-finder enters findings covering those elements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a juvenile theft adjudication for aiding and abetting shoplifting and clarified that Washington’s theft statute requires only an intent to deprive, not an intent to permanently deprive, making the charging language and findings legally sufficient.


State v. Komok, 783 P.2d 1061 (Wash. 1989)