§708-831  Theft in the second degree.  (1) 
A person commits the offense of theft in the second degree if the person
commits theft:



(a) Of property from the person of another;



(b) Of property or services the value of which
exceeds $300;



(c) Of an aquacultural product or part thereof from
premises that is fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders
or there is prominently displayed on the premises a sign or signs sufficient to
give notice and reading as follows:  "Private Property"; or



(d) Of agricultural equipment, supplies, or products,
or part thereof, the value of which exceeds $100 but does not exceed $20,000,
or of agricultural products that exceed twenty-five pounds, from premises that
are fenced, enclosed, or secured in a manner designed to exclude intruders or
there is prominently displayed on the premises a sign or signs sufficient to
give notice and reading as follows:  "Private Property".  The sign or
signs, containing letters not less than two inches in height, shall be placed
along the boundary line of the land in a manner and in such position as to be
clearly noticeable from outside the boundary line.  Possession of agricultural
products without ownership and movement certificates, when a certificate is
required pursuant to chapter 145, is prima facie evidence that the products are
or have been stolen.



(2)  Theft in the second degree is a class C
felony.  A person convicted of committing the offense of theft in the second
degree under [subsection (1)](c) and (d) shall be sentenced in accordance with
chapter 706, except that for the first offense, the court may impose a minimum
sentence of a fine of at least $1,000 or two-fold damages sustained by the
victim, whichever is greater. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1 and c 102, §1; am L 1974,
c 201, §1; am L 1975, c 158, §1; am L 1979, c 106, §6; am L 1981, c 68, §1; am
L 1986, c 314, §64; am L 1987, c 176, §2; am L 1990, c 28, §3; am L 1992, c 54,
§2 and c 289, §2; am L 1993, c 218, §3; am L 1998, c 228, §1; am L 2005, c 182,
§3; am L 2006, c 156, §6]



 



Case Notes



 



  Welfare fraud cases may be prosecuted under this section
despite existence of §346-34.  61 H. 79, 595 P.2d 291.



  History of this section and §346-34 reveals no legislative
intent to limit welfare fraud prosecutions to §346-34.  62 H. 364, 616 P.2d
193.



  Where there is a single intention, general impulse, and plan,
there is only one offense even though there is a series of transactions.  62 H.
364, 616 P.2d 193.



  Substantial direct and circumstantial evidence existed from
which jury could have convicted defendant of theft in the first degree by
extortion.  64 H. 65, 637 P.2d 407.



  No irreconcilable conflict with unemployment fraud statute;
State may proceed under either.  67 H. 406, 689 P.2d 753.



  Not a lesser included offense of fraudulent use of a credit
card.  70 H. 434, 774 P.2d 888.



  In order to convict a defendant of theft in the second
degree, in violation of §708-830(8)(a) and subsection (1)(b), the prosecution
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to steal
property or services valued in excess of $300.  90 H. 359, 978 P.2d 797.



  Where defendant testified that defendant harbored no belief
at all regarding the value of the stolen property, §708-801(5) could not afford
defendant a mitigating defense to second degree theft under subsection (1)(b). 
90 H. 359, 978 P.2d 797.



  Inasmuch as the "intent to defraud" component of
second degree theft by shoplifting, as defined by §708-800, prescribes two
alternative means of establishing the state of mind requisite to the offense of
second degree theft by shoplifting, trial court plainly erred in failing to
instruct jury as to the alternative states of mind requisite to the charged
offense.  101 H. 389, 69 P.3d 517.



  The alternative states of mind potentially requisite to the
charged offense of second degree theft by shoplifting, as prescribed by the
definition of "intent to defraud" set forth in §708-800, does not
implicate a defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict, as
guaranteed by article I, §§5 and 14 of the Hawaii constitution; a proper
elements instruction, which sets forth the alternative states of mind
prescribed by the "intent to defraud" component of second degree
theft by shoplifting, does not violate defendant's constitutional right.  101
H. 389, 69 P.3d 517.



  Where store security manager's testimony regarding the
price/value of items, based on a universal price code with the price on the
item that the manager verified through the store register system, was
inadmissible hearsay, State failed to introduce substantial evidence of the
value of the items necessary to support the charged offense of second or third
degree theft; however, evidence was sufficient to support conviction of lesser
included offense of fourth degree theft.  95 H. 169 (App.), 19 P.3d 752.



  Valuation of stolen goods; airline tickets.  1 H. App. 644,
623 P.2d 898.



  Evidence of moneys wrongfully converted, constituting
violation of subsection (1)(b).  1 H. App. 658, 624 P.2d 381.