CRIMINAL PROPERTY DAMAGE IN THE FIRST DEGREE – DAMAGE EXCEEDS $20,000

CRIMINAL PROPERTY DAMAGE IN THE FIRST DEGREE – DAMAGE EXCEEDS $20,000: H.R.S. § 708-820(1)(b) (Applicable to offenses occurring on or after June 9, 2006) [In Count (count number) of the Indictment/Complaint, the] [The] Defendant, (defendant’s name), is charged with the offense of Criminal Property Damage in the First Degree. A person commits the offense of Criminal Property Damage in the First Degree if by means other than fire he/she intentionally or knowingly damages the property of another, without the other’s consent, in an amount exceeding $20,000. There are five material elements of the offense of Criminal Property Damage in the First Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These five elements are: 1. That, on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant damaged the property of another; and 2. That the Defendant did so by means other than fire; and 3. That the Defendant did so without the other=s consent; and 4. That the damage to the property exceeded $20,000; and 5. That the Defendant acted intentionally or knowingly as to each of the foregoing elements. Notes H.R.S. §§ 708-820(1)(B), 702-206(1) and (2). For definition of states of mind, see instructions: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant's state of mind as to the value of the property, see instruction (valuation of property). However, “HRS ' 708-801, by its clear terms, applies only when ‘the value of property or services is determinative of the class or grade of an offense.’ . . . HRS § 708-822 does not, on its face, require a determination of the value of property; HRS § 708-822 refers to the amount of damage done by the offender not the value of the property damaged.” State v. Pardee, 86 Hawai`i 165, 168, 948 P.2d 586, 589 (App. 1997) (emphasis added). The Intermediate Court also found that even if HRS § 708-801 was applicable to criminal property damage offenses, the value of the damaged items had been sufficiently proved.