Commission debates re-ranking of identity theft, vulnerable-adult exploitation and motor-vehicle theft after data shows high departure rates

Director Writes presented a targeted re-ranking packet at the May 7 meeting focused on two chapters: (1) a set of ‘‘aggravated thefts’’ (identity theft, financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult, theft with foreseeable risk of bodily harm, and organized retail theft) and (2) theft-related offenses involving motor vehicles.

On identity theft, staff noted the commission previously placed the largest-threshold identity-theft subdivision at severity level 8; the director said there is an unusually high dispositional departure rate for that subdivision and cited staff data showing “over 56%” dispositional departures with 44% of those cases resulting in prison in the sample. Commissioners asked whether such a high departure rate should prompt a re-ranking to reflect typical sentencing practice rather than statutory maxima.

The director described the legislature’s approach to theft-with-foreseeable-risk as an across-the-board statutory multiplier that increases statutory maximums by 50%; the commission addressed that by adopting a guidelines rule that adds one severity level in such cases. Commissioners questioned how that rule interacts with existing theft rankings and whether a consistent pattern for future aggravated-theft statutes would be helpful.

On motor-vehicle offenses, staff summarized the current patchwork: permanent motor-vehicle theft is ranked at severity level 4 (regardless of value), motor-vehicle use without consent is ranked at level 3, but receiving-stolen-property cases involving motor vehicles often sit at level 2 or 3 depending on value. A fiscal note prepared by staff suggests that bringing receiving-stolen-vehicle up to level 4 could eventually add an estimated 41 prison beds, because most receiving-stolen-property cases appear to involve vehicles. Commissioners discussed legal differences between theft and receiving and the policy trade-offs between equalizing ranks and the fiscal impact on corrections.

Staff also recommended establishing a regular annual agenda item (staff suggested September) to review unranked offenses’ frequencies and district-court ranking patterns so the commission can trigger re-examination if convictions increase materially. The commission asked staff to prepare clearer distributional data and to consider guidance (rather than single ranks) for predicate-dependent unranked offenses such as aiding an offender after the fact and racketeering.

What happens next: staff will refine the fiscal analysis and criminal-history distributions, propose specific re-ranking options in the June packet, and the commission will consider whether to recommend rank changes or offer guidance for judges on unranked offenses.