statute is not clear, there is a risk of arbitrary criminal enforcement, and a potential for violating the separation of powers doctrine by extending criminal liability beyond that which the legislature contemplated. Hearn, 797 N.W.2d at 586-87. The potential for ambiguous enforcement in light of the majority’s position affects crimes committed by affirmative acts. Every bill taken from a gas station’s cash register could give rise to an individu al charge of theft. Every threat of violence spoken in a conversation paves the way for a slew of assault charges. Each footstep on another’s land could constitute an independent incident of trespass. The implications of the majority’s approach are equally disproportional regarding crimes of omissions or negative acts. See Iowa Code § 702.2 (<HOLDING>). For example, every minute, every hour, or
holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim holding that the term diligent prosecution requires thatthe government action is both capable of requiring compliance with the act and calculated to do so internal quotationmarks omitted holding that the term indecent act required no further definition recognizing the term act includes a failure to do any act which the law requires one to perform holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective