783 P.2d 1061 (1989)
Defendant argued that the information under which he was charged with theft was defective because it did not include the common law language of "intent to permanently deprive," and that the findings of fact made by the trial court were insufficient because they did not specifically include language indicating that common law element.
- The court affirmed defendant's theft conviction.
- The court held that the language of the theft statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.020, and the legislative history indicated that the legislature did not intend to retain the common law requirement of intent to "permanently deprive" in the offense of theft by taking.
- The legislature's statutory definition of a crime could supersede common law.
- In its statutory definition of "deprive," the legislature did not refer to the common law requirement of intent to permanently deprive.
- The legislative history indicated intent to omit the common law concept of intent to permanently deprive because the statute included the common law element when it was introduced, but the language was omitted when it was finally enacted.
The court affirmed defendant's theft conviction.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law