An Act To Amend Title 11 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Theft.
Summary
HB276 amends Delaware’s theft statute to allow prosecutors to aggregate the value of property taken in separate thefts when those thefts are part of a single “course of conduct.” Under the bill, multiple related thefts can be treated as one offense for purposes of determining the theft’s degree and penalty, rather than requiring each taking to be charged or valued separately. The substitute version also adds a statutory definition of “course of conduct,” describing it as a pattern of more than one act over time showing a single continuing purpose, or a larcenous scheme or plan constituting a continuous transaction.
The bill also makes technical and conforming changes to Title 11’s theft provisions, including reorganizing the penalty structure and clarifying how theft involving vulnerable victims is punished. It preserves the existing theft framework but updates the language so that the course-of-conduct requirement is part of the operative offense language that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt when higher-value theft penalties are sought.
Impact
HB276 would change Delaware criminal law by expanding how theft amounts are calculated and prosecuted, especially in cases involving repeated takings over time. It affects Title 11, Section 841, and allows related thefts to be combined for charging and sentencing purposes when they arise from a single course of conduct. The bill also retains and applies enhanced penalties for theft involving victims age 62 or older, impaired adults, and persons with disabilities, while making technical drafting corrections to the statute.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest generally supportive and technical sentiment around the bill. The synopsis indicates the substitute was designed to clarify the original proposal, define key terms, and align the statute with drafting standards, suggesting the sponsor’s intent was to improve enforceability rather than alter the theft law broadly. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence in the record of formal opposition or divided sentiment.
Contention
The main substantive issue is whether thefts committed at different times should be aggregated into one charge when they are part of a continuing scheme. Supporters appear to favor giving prosecutors a clearer tool to address serial theft and avoid undercharging repeated conduct. The substitute also reflects a legal drafting concern: it makes “course of conduct” an element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which matters for due process and the burden of proof. No specific opposing viewpoint is documented in the provided record.