Although the new code will be tested by the judicial process, which will produce a new body of case law, the courts in other jurisdictions have recognized that the adoption of a theft consolidation statute demonstrates a legislative intent to eliminate these technicalities. The generic law makes unimportant the definitional distinctions among embezzlement, larceny, and other common law crimes of stealing. This amalgamation has major procedural implications. It is unnecessary to allege in the accusatory document the particular type of theft involved or to choose, ahead of proof, the theory upon which the prosecution is to proceed. In addition, proof of the requisite elements of any of the included offenses is sufficient to sustain a conviction of theft on a general verdict of guilty. Idaho's statutory definition of theft necessitates the proof only of either of two criminal intents and any of three criminal acts. Juries generally do not need to consider the technical differences between types of theft and may reach a guilty verdict if they find that an unlawful taking has been proven. However, jury instructions must incorporate certain fundamental principles. Courts in California and New York have upheld the constitutionality of theft consolidation on general principles against due process and double jeopardy allegations. The Idaho law provides for the new crimes of false promise and unauthorized control and has specifically defined certain defenses. Idaho's courts should use the law in accordance with its legislative intent. Footnotes are provided.