INFERENCE: THEFT IN THE FIRST DEGREE – RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

INFERENCE: THEFT IN THE FIRST DEGREE – RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: HRS § 708-830(7) If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, at the time he/she received the property, was a dealer in property of the kind received and that he/she acquired the property for a consideration which he/she knew was far below its reasonable value, you may, but are not required to, infer that the Defendant knew the property was stolen. If you do so infer, you must nevertheless consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew the property was stolen. Notes HRS § 708-830(7); HRE Rule 306(a)(3). State v. Mitchell, 88 Hawai‘i 216, 965 Hawai‘i 149 (App. 1997); State v. Tabigne, 88 Hawai‘i 296, 966 P.2d 608 (1998). This instruction is appropriate when there is evidence that the Defendant is a dealer in property of the kind received and that the Defendant knowingly paid far below its reasonable value.